Chennai Court December 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 4 of about 43 results (0.013 seconds)The State of Madras Vs. Haji Shakoor Mohammed Essa
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ143; [1960]11STC213(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. This application, preferred by the State under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act, arose out of the proceedings to assess the assessee for the year of assessment 1952-53. The original order of assessment was passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer as the assessing authority, on 10th February, 1954. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer against that order of assessment and that appeal terminated on 29th June, 1954. Subsequent to that in March, 1956, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took action under Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why a turnover that had escaped assessment in the original assessment should not be subjected to assessment. On 31st March, 1956, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the escaped turnover by adding a little over Rs. 75,000 to the turnover which was originally taxed. Against the order dated 31st March, 1956, the assessee preferred an appeal to...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniathal Vs. R. Udayappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ478
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question arising in these petitions is whether a woman is disqualified for being appointed as the headman of a village under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895, by reason of her sex.2. One Deivasikamani Gounder was the viljage headman of Chitravuthampalayam in Dharapuram taluk in Coimbatore district. The office which he held was a hereditary one governed by the provisions of Madras Act III of 1895. He died in May, 1953, leaving no male issue but only four daughters. The petitioner is the eldest of these daughters. After the death of the petitioner's father was notified to the authorities, the name of the petitioner who was a minor on that date was registered on 17th July, 1954, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(5) of the Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer, and one Udaya Gounder was appointed as the deputy to do the duties of the office pending the minor attaining majority. By an order, however, of the Collector, dated 11t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]40ITR599(Mad)
The petitioner, Narayanaswami Iyer, was employed as the manager of Swami and Co., a proprietary concern owned by his wife. His remuneration under the agreement dated 16th October, 1948, between himself and his employer, was Rs. 750 a month or half per cent. of the annual turnover, whichever was higher. A fresh agreement was entered into between the petitioner and his employer on July 1, 1949, which revised the scale of remuneration. The petitioner was to get thereafter one per cent. of the annual turnover, if it exceeded Rs. 24 lakhs, subject to the minimum of Rs. 750 a month. For the period between July 1, 1949, and June 30, 1950, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 33,146, as remuneration under the revised agreement, as the turnover amounted to Rs. 33,14,620. Swami and Co. claimed this payment as an admissible item of deduction in the assessment proceedings for 1951-52. The Tribunal ultimately held that only a deduction of Rs. 16,573 was admissible in computing the taxable profits o...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ahmed Maracair Vs. Muthuvalliappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad28
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned District Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 104 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O. S. No. 97 of 1954.2. The appellant before me Ahmad Maraicair is the owner of Ac. 76-47 cents of Nanja lands in four villages and a cocoanut garden and a bungalow in the village of Keelachavadi. He intended to go to Java on business. Therefore, he executed a registered lease deed Ex. A. 1 dated 21-4-1951 in favour of the respondent Muthuvalliappa Chettiar for a period of five years for an annual rent of 1825 kalams of paddy and Rs. 100 cash.Subsequently, the parties entered into a fresh agreement of lease Ex. A-2 whereby the period of lease was reduced to three years. The dispute between the parties, so far as these legal proceedings are concerned, has been in respect of rent payable, for the third and last year, as the rent payable for the 6rst two years ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kandaswami Naicker Vs. G. Raju Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad313
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 615-1-0 towards the court-fee due on a plaint which he presented on the original side of this court. The suit was for partition. In the plaint there were averments regarding a mortgage decree and a sale which followed that decree and the plaintiff apparently contended that the decree and the sale were not binding on him. The plaint was presented on 28-5-1952 with a court-fee of Rs. 100, evidently on the assumption that it fell under Art. 17-B Sch. II of the Court-fees Act. On 12-8-1952 the office returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to value the relief to set aside the mortgage decree and to pay court-fee on such valuation. Thereupon the appellant filed an application for leave to continue the suit in forma pauperis.On 23-9-1953 the learned Master passed an order refusing leave to the plaintiff to continue the suit as pauper but allowed him six weeks time to pay deficit...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagarathinam and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ487; [1960]11STC342(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. This is an application under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act to revise the order of the Tribunal. Two questions arise for determination: (1) whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the turnover of Rs. 16,718 was assessable to tax and (2) whether the Tribunal was right in including in the assessable turnover, a sum of Rs. 7,166-4-0 which was the estimated cost of the gunnies in which the petitioner, assessee, sold vegetables prior to the date of the notification in December, 1954.2. The turnover of Rs. 16,718 represented the sale turnover of four items of vegetables. We find it convenient to refer to these vegetables by their Tamil names, the vegetables are indigenous. The turnover was : Sales of karunai(sic) Rs. 8,121, sales of senai (sic) Rs. 4,001, sales of sembu (sic) Rs. 2,968 and sales of sirukizangu(sic) Rs. 1,628. Total Rs. 16,718. The question for consideration is whether these or any of these come within the scope of the expression 'yam' as tha...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kandaswami Naicker Vs. G. Raju Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ481
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 615-1-0 towards the Court-fee due on a plaint which he presented on the Original Side of this Court. The suit was for partition. In the plaint there were averments regarding a mortgage decree and a sale which followed that decree and the plaintiff apparently contended that the decree and the sale were not binding on him. The plaint was presented on 28th May, 1952, with a Court-fee of Rs. 100, evidently on the assumption that it fell under Article 17-B, Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. On 12th August, 1952, the office returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to value the relief to set aside the mortgage decree and to pay Court-fee thereon on such valuation. Thereupon the appellant filed an application for leave to continue the suit in forma pauperis. On 23rd September, 1953, the learned Master passed an order refusing leave to the plaintiff to continu...
Tag this Judgment!T. Venugopal Vs. the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, Ltd., by I ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ136
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in the lower Court in I.A. No. 507 of 1955, in Original Suit No. 1363 of 1954, on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras.2. The facts are that by the order in I.A. No. 507 of 1955, the learned Judge directed this petitioner (appellant) to deposit a sum of Rs. 350 into Court on or before 2nd April, 1956, failing which his petition under Order 9, Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to restore the suit dismissed for default, to file, will itself stand dismissed. In this order, the learned Judge observes that this was not the first occasion when the plaintiff was absent or unready. The plea before him was that the plaintiff (petitioner) should be actually directed to pay into Court a sum of Rs. 750 being the costs of the suit and the costs of the application, before the order of dismissal was set aside.3. In the final paragraph of his order, the learned Judge observed that the respondent contended before him...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Mohanakrishnan Vs. Chimanlal Desai and Co.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad452
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit in the City Civil Court Madras for recovery of Rs. 11080/- as damages for alleged breach of contract. The case of the appellant was that he entered into two contracts with the defendant-firm (Chimanlal Desai and Co.) for the supply of 500 and 1000 fan belts for Mack Trucks under indent orders Nos. 5039 and 5052 dated 18-4-1949 and 7-5-1949. It is not in dispute between the parties that, with regard to indent No. 5052, the fan belts, 1000 in number, were supplied to the plaintiff-appellant about the end of July, 1949.But the suit was with regard to the alleged failure of the defendant-firm to supply the 500 fan belts covered by indent NO. 5039. The defendant-firm contended that the contract was really between the plaintiff and Messrs. Thermoid Company, Trenton N. J. U.S.A., and that they merely acted as the agents of the plaintiff with reference to the suit transactions. They further explained that the goods in question arr...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohamed Abdul Khader Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ416; [1960]11STC247(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The above appeal, the petitions and the tax case are filed by several dealers in hides and skins and they raise a common question regarding the validity of Rule 16 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules promulgated by the Government in G.0. No. 2733 (Rev.) dated 3rd September, 1955, by virtue of its power under Section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act). Recently, we had occasion to consider in W.A. No. 15 of 1958 Since reported as Sreenivas and Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore Market Division [1960] 11 S.T.C. 68 and W.P. No. 400 of 1957 Since reported as Abdul Subhan & Co. v. The State of Madras and Anr. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 173 the validity of the rule in connection with the objections as to its (1) not having been reserved for the assent of the President under Article 286(3) of the Constitution and (2) contravening Article 304 of the Constitution, being discriminatory in its operation with respec...
Tag this Judgment!