Chennai Court November 1960 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: Ganesa Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad342; (1961)1MLJ271
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is by the two accused against their convictions and sentences under Section 332 I. P. C. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona-mallee. As the sentence is only a fine of Rs. 50 in each case and is non-appealable, the revision. has been preferred to this Court. The point of law taken before me by Sri R. Sundaravaradam, learned counsel for the petitioners, is this. This case was originally tried by the Special First Class Magistrate, Saidapet Before him P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined. Subsequently the case was transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee.He examined the sixth witness and acting on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 recorded by the Special First Class Magistrate and also on the evidence of P. W. 6 recorded by him, he convicted the petitioners. It is contended that when the case was transferred after the examination of the five witnesses to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he must have examined all the witne...
In Re: Ganesa Fillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ244
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is by the two accused against their convictions and sentences under Section 332; I.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. As the sentence is only a fine of Rs. 50 in each case and is non-appealable, the revision has been preferred to this Court, The point of law taken before me by Sri R. Sundaravaradam, learned Counsel for the petitioners, i.s this. This case was originally tried by the Special First Class Magistrate, Saidapet. Before him P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined. Subsequently the case was transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee,He examined the sixth witness and acting on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 recorded by the Special First Class Magistrate and also on he evidence of P. W. 6 recorded by him, he convicted the petitioners. It is contended that when the case was transferred after the examination of the five witnesses to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he must have examined all the witness...
Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR552(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The relevant facts were never in dispute. The year of account with which we are concerned in this reference ended on December 31, 1950. The corresponding assessment year was 1951-52. The assessee bank paid to its constituents in the year of account Rs. 25,91,565 as interest charges on the various deposits received by the bank in the normal course of its banking business. No amount was borrowed in that year or in the past for the express purchase of buying securities or investment in securities. In the course of its normal banking business the assessee bank bought, held and sold securities including Mysore securities the income from which was tax free. The interest it received on all the securities it held, was brought to account as receipts. The money deposited by the constituents as well as the securities bought and held by the bank thus constituted the stock-in-trade of its banking business. Up to the assessment year 1951-52 the entire interest charges paid by the b...
The Management of the Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad401; (1961)IILLJ60Mad
Rajamannar, C.J.1. We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge. The first point which was pressed upon us by Mr. Rajah Aiyar, learned counsel for the management, the appellant, was that the case did not fall within the scope of Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge has held that the facts of the case clearly showed that it does fall within Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Standing Order Article 17 (a) under which the management has got the right to terminate the services of an employee on giving 14 days' notice.But it should not be overlooked that the management is bound to record in writing the reasons for such termination. If the reasons so recorded would amount to misconduct, then the fact that the termination purported to be by the issue of notice under Article 17 (a) would not make the termination any the less for misconduct. To hold otherwise, would lead...
G. Venkatachala Odayar Vs. Ramachandra Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad423; (1961)1MLJ188
1. This civil revision petition raises a question of law of general importance. The question is whether a finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer functioning under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, Madras Act XXV of 1955, that the cultivating tenant is not in arrears of rent in an application filed by the landlord for evicting him can bar a civil suit filed by the landlord for recovery of such arrears of rent.2. The petitioner in the revision petition leased out his properties to the deceased father of the first respondent and the second respondent under a lease deed dated 5-9-1954 for the fasli year 1364. The rent fixed under the lease deed was 158 kalarns of paddy. The petitioner claimed that the lessees were in arrears of rent to the extent of 18 kalams for that fasli year. For the subsequent fasli 1365 a fresh lease deed was executed by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner on 25-1-1956 agreeing to measure 176 kalams of paddy as rent. According to the petit...
State of Madras Vs. Asher Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC233(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. In the assessment finalised by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal on 24th December, 1955, he applied the principle laid down in Bengal Immunity Co., Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1955] 6 S.T.C. 446 and held that turnover of Rs. 7,87,671-2-0 was not assessable as that represented the turnover of inter-State sales. Subsequent to that, on 30th January, 1956, the President promulgated the Sales Tax Validation Ordinance, which was followed up by the Sales Tax Validation Act, VII of 1956. Under that enactment the ban imposed by Article 286 on the levy of tax on inter-State sales was lifted so that what were called 'explanation sales' could be taxed if the appropriate State Legislature provided for that. The Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore, purporting to exercise the revisional powers vested in him by Section 12 of the Act, issued a notice to the assessee to show cause why the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 24th December, 1955, should not be revised, and why the...
K. Palaniappa Nadar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC338(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The view taken by the Tribunal on the evidence placed before it, that the assessee was the first purchaser of the tobacco within the State within the meaning of Section 5(viii) of the Act, as it stood in the relevant year-now it has been re-enacted in the same form and renumbered as Section 5(iv)-is correct and calls for no interference in revision.2. The facts found by the Tribunal were as follows. The assessee, a dealer in tobacco, buys his tobacco from a wholesale merchant resident within the State of Madras, who holds a licence under L-5. The asses-see's seller, the wholesaler, buys tobacco both within the State of Madras and also outside, particularly in Andhra. The wholesale merchant has no L-5 licence to store his purchases in Andhra State. What he does is to employ a commission agent in Andhra to buy tobacco on his behalf and to get it bonded in the warehouse of the commission agent, for which the commission agent holds a L-5 licence. Purchases are effected t...
Rangaswami and anr. Vs. Registrar of Trade Unions and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad231; (1961)ILLJ599Mad; (1961)2MLJ554
(1) This is a petition under S. 11 of the Trade Unions Act seeking to set aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Madras refusing to register the union of employees of the Madras Raj Bhavan as a trade union under the Trade Unions Act XVI of 1926, which for the sake of brevity I shall hereafter refer to as the Act.(2) In the Raj Bhavan at Guindy, a number of persons are employed in various capacities such as household, staff, peons, chauffers, tailors, carpenters, maistries, gardeners, sweepers etc. There are also gardeners and maistries employed at the Raj Bhavan at Ootacamund. Those persons are employed for doing domestic and other services and for the maintenance of the Governor's household and to attend to the needs of the Governor, the members of his family, staff and State guests. There are two categories of employees : (1) those whose services are more or less of a domestic nature. They number 102. The services of these persons are pensionable and are governed by certai...
Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR770(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that arises in this revision is, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee, which is a tea and coffee plantation, for the upkeep of the immature tea and coffee plants is not allowable under section 5 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act.It is common ground that the tea plantation consisted of an extent of over 1,000 acres of mature tea business and of 123 and odd acres of immature plants. The coffee plantation consisted of nearly 2,500 acres of mature coffee plants as against roughly 300 acres of immature plants. During the year of assessment 1955-56, a revenue expenditure of Rs. 13,37,353 was allowed, but the claim of Rs. 52,420 and Rs. 8,176 respectively, spent on the upkeep of immature tea and coffee clearings, was disallowed. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer rejected the claim on the basis that its was capital expenditure, observing : 'All expenditure on new clearings till they come to bear...
Ceylon Thowfeck Hotel Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC238(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. For the assessment year 1953-54, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of his hotel business at 41/2 pies in the rupee under the proviso to Section 3(l)(b) as it stood then of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939) to which we shall here-after refer as the Act. The Tribunal applied the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No. 36 of 1954 Since reported as Krishna Iyer and Anr. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 346, that the statutory provision authorising the levy of tax at 4 pies in the rupee was unconstitutional and unenforceable and held that the tax should be assessed only at 3 pies per rupee. That decision of the Tribunal was rendered on 28th May, 1956. The excess amount of Rs. 936-1-2 that had been collected from the petitioner was refunded to him by adjustment on 30th September, 1956. The Madras General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act (XV of 1956), to which we shall refer hereafter as the Amending Act, received the assent of the Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »