Chennai Court November 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 51 results (0.015 seconds)M.S. Mariappa Nadar Vs. State by the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ464
Rajagopalan, J.1. This application under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act arises out of reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53. The petitioner-assessee was originally assessed to sales tax on an estimated turnover on 29th March, 1954. That order was passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, as the 'assessing authority' appointed under the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, who dismissed the appeal on 6th August, 1954. Subsequent to that, after an examination of the accounts of one Suruli Nadar, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice on 12th April, 1955, in purported exercise of the revisional powers conferred upon him by Section 12 of the Act, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the assessment should not be revised by the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee lodged his objections, one of which was that the Commercial Tax Officer who had disposed of the appeal could not himself revise his own order under Section 12 of the Act. Mea...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M. Periannan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad406; [1960]39ITR159(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.(1) The following two questions have been referred to us under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act:'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal having dismissed the appeal by the department had jurisdiction to set aside the assessment on the petitioner as an individual and direct a fresh assessment; and (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deciding the appeal on the basis of an irregularity in the assessment while the said irregularity was not specifically taken in the grounds of appeal.' (2) The following facts are necessary to be mentioned in answering the questions aforesaid. The assessee is a Nattukottai Chettiar. He and his nephew, Ramaswami Chettiar, formed members of a Hindu Undivided family. Ramaswami Chettiar was congenitally blind. He executed a release deed in favour of the assessee in the year 1935, admitting his disqualification.The family owned ...
Tag this Judgment!Workers in Sri Krishna Talkies (South India Cinema Employees' Associat ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ478Mad
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. After hearing learned Counsel for the respondents in W.P. No. 19 of 1959, who are the appellants here, and the learned Counsel for the petitioner (the management of Sri Krishna Talkies) who is the respondent here, we consider that, in the Interests of justice and in order to enable us to effectively adjudicate upon the subject-matter of the appeal, a finding should now be called for from the labour court upon two Issues of fact:(1) whether, on the date on which the resolutions were passed by an appreciablesection of the workers of the respondent establishment, these workers were members of the South Indian Cinema Employees' Association, which actually purported to raise the industrial dispute on their behalf and to represent them in the labour court, and(2) whether, alternatively and if the first contingency is to be ruled out, the South Indian Cinema Employees' Association was authorized by this appreciable section of the workers, whether orally or in writin...
Tag this Judgment!Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetty and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1961]42ITR788(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - The question that has been referred to us for decision under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the application of section 10A for clubbing the profits of Sundaram and Co. Ltd. and Manickavasagam Ltd. with the profits of the assessee for purposes of computation of excess profits tax was justified ?'The question referred relates to the assessment to excess profits tax for four annual chargeable accounting periods from 1st April 1942, each period ending on the 31st March of the following year. The assessee, Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetti and Co., is a firm consisting of three partners, Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar and his two sons, Sundaram Chettiar and Manickavasagam Chettiar. Originally they were members of a Hindu undivided family. On October 16, 1930, Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar entered into an agreement with Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai, under which Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chetti and Co. was appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Veerammal and anr. Vs. Kr. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad529
(1) This second appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 274 of 1957, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O. S. No. 30 of 1957.(2) The case for the plaintiff Lakshmanan Chettiar is: He is carrying on business under the name and style of Lakshmi and Co. in Madurai Town to which provisions of S. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act have been extended. The first defendant Kadambaiya Chettiar of Aruppukottai Town was one of his constituents. The first defendant wanted the plaintiff to supply him goods on credit. In Madurai there is a widespread practice amongst merchants to create equitable mortgages by deposit of title deeds by way of security as against the supply of goods on credit. On 7-10-1953 clothes of the value of Rs. 3000/- we purchased on credit by the first defendant from the plaintiff's shop. On 10-10-1953, according to the plaintiff, ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Muna Muthukaruppan Chettiar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ20; [1960]11STC220(Mad)
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three petitions raise a common question regarding the proper construction of Section 12-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and Sections 3 and 17 of Madras Act XV of 1956.2. By an amendment effected to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, by Madras Act XV of 1949, a proviso was added to Section 3(1)(b), the charging section under the Act and it read :Provided that if and to the extent to which such turnover relates to articles of food and drink sold in a hotel, boarding house or restaurant, the tax shall be calculated at the rate of 4 pies for every rupee if the turnover relating to those articles is not less than Rs. 25,000.3. In effect this meant that whereas normally the standard rate of tax was 3 pies per rupee on the total turnover tax was enhanced to 4 pies in cases where articles of food and drink were sold in hotels. The constitutional validity of this proviso was challenged before this Court and this Court upheld the objection and decl...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswanatha Pillai Vs. the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ11
ORDER1. This is an application for stay of execution of the decree in O.S. No. 58 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, pending disposal of C.M.A. No. 221 of 1959. O.S. No. 58 of 1956 is a suit on mortgage laid by the respondent bank against the petitioner. There was an exparte decree on 27th September, 1957. On 26th October, 1957, an application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in Court on the date' of trial. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree. C.M.A. No. 221 of 1959 is filed against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. In the meanwhile the respondent has taken steps to bring the properties to sale. The petitioner therefore prays that there should be stay of execution of the decree pending disposal of C.M.A.2. Mr. Thambi, learned Counsel for the respondent, takes a preliminary objection that this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Arun (1953) (Private) Ltd. Vs. State of Madras Represented by Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad216; [1960]11STC723(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The turnover, the liability of which to sales -tax is in dispute, consists of two items: (1) Rs. 3,19,503 and (2) Rs. 28,749-12-0. The Tribunal agreed with the Department in holding that these two items were also liable to sales tax. It was the correctness of those findings that the assessee challenged by this petition under Section 12-D of the Sales-tax Act.2. It should be easier to dispose of the second item first. That represented the turnover of sales effected out of the stock held by the assessee at Madras, no doubt, on instructions from the Calcutta firm. On the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale took place only at Madras, and that the assessee was the dealer in relation to those sales. The claim of the assessee that this item of Rs. 28,749-12-0 is not liable to sales tax was rightly rejected.3. The first item, Rs. 3,19,503, represented a turnover of sales of imported milk powder. The Tribunal set out the course of dealings. Messrs. Arun and ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar and anr. Vs. General and Credit Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad328
(1) This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in A. S. No. 201 of 1955, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned 4th Additional Judge of that Court in O. S. No. 390 of 1952.(2) The learned advocate for the appellant Mr. N. R. Raghavachariar raises an interesting point of law which is not covered by direct authority. It arises from the wide-spread business to-day of hire-purchase agreements.(3) The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, relates to a cinema projector set, the particulars of which are given in the hire-purchase agreement Ex. A-1, a standardised form of hire purchase agreement1 in English to which the parties conversant with English have subscribed dated 25-8-1949, entered into between the plaintiffs as owners, the first defendant as the hirer and the second defendant as the guarantor. The agreement stipulates for the payment of Rs. 8,156/- as instalments of hire for twelve months and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Oil Mills, Shevapet and ors. Vs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad388
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) These are two related appeals. In C. C. C. A. No. 22 of 1956 the appellants are the Rajagopal Oil Mills, Salem, (1st defendant) and defendants 2 to 4. This is the main appeal, which involves a question of some interest whether, in the context of the suit transaction and other related transactions of the firm Rajagopal Oil Mills, the karta of this joint family business (second defendant) is not estopped from contending that the firm is not liable upon the suit transaction because the transaction was conducted and put through by Gopal (third defendant), a junior member of the family firm. C. C. C. A. No. 25 of 1956 is an appeal by Messrs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd. (plaintiffs in the lower court) upon two relatively subsidiary matters, concerning the actual date upon which the breach of contract occurred, and the assessment of the quantum of damages by the lower court.(2) Very briefly, the evidence conclusively shows that the Rajagopal Oil Mills (first defendant) e...
Tag this Judgment!