Chennai Court February 1960 Judgments
R. Sarangapani and anr. Vs. the Port Trust of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad234; (1961)1MLJ57
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. These two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution were heard together, as they raise common questions of law. They originally, came on before one of us, Jagadisan J., who directed them to he posted before a Division Bench, having regard to the importance of the questions raised. The prayer in both the petitions is for the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ as this court may think fit to the Board of Trustees of the Port Trust, Madras, calling upon them to forbear giving effect to a resolution passed by the Board on 29-5-1959. The resolution runs thus : 'Resolved that the Trust take over export cargoother than ores, vegetable oils, molasses and anyother cargo in bulk and do the handling on share from a date to be fixed by the Chairman, Mr. A. R. Liddiard, and Sarvashri A. M. Kothandarama Reddi, J. R. Nayak, C. K. Duraivelan and B. Ramalinga Reddi dissented. Resolved also that Mr. A. R. Liddiard, Shri Jasjit Singh or his nominee and Sri U. S...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalais Timber Trust and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR781(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to his court under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act was :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is justification for the apportionment made by the Tribunal of the profits between British India and Cochin State ?'The findings of the Tribunal, with reference to which we have to answer this question, lie within a comparatively brief compass : (1) it was within British India that the assessee entered into the contract with the Government of India; (2) all the other trading operations of the assessee in all the relevant years were undertaken only within Cochin State; and (3) all the profits were realised and received by the assessee in Cochin State, that is, outside British India. The Tribunal held that, though the profits of the contract business actually accrued to the assessee wholly outside British India, the provisions of section 42 of the Act applied, and that the assessee was liable to be taxed on 50 per c...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Sharfuddin, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad508; [1960]39ITR333(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.(1) In form and virtually in substance the Rs. 31,000 paid to the assessee by his partner Abbas was compensation for the relinquishment of the rights of a partner which the assessee had. The deed of partnership specially provided that the purchase and sale of scrap metal was the only item of business that the partnership was to undertake. Though the deed of partnership provided that it was only the assessee that was to contribute the capital, it was common ground that the capital was borrowed capital. The entire liability to discharge that loan was taken over by the surviving partner Abbas under the terms of the deed of dissolution. To go back to the point mentioned earlier, the only item of business that the partnership was formed to transact was the purchase and sale of scrap iron. The purchase was effected, but the sale could not be effected, because of a temporary embargo placed upon sales by the Government of India.Abbas took the risk of effecting a sale and making ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Manavala Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR725(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The first question relates to the assessment year 1943-44, the previous year for which ended on March 31, 1943. The second question relates to the year of account ending with March 31, 1944, the corresponding assessment year being 1944-45.On the findings of the Tribunal we can see no justification for the disallowance ordered by the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim as a whole in each year on the ground that no shortage had been proved. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim as a whole in both the years, because he was satisfied that the assessee sustained loss by the shortage in garments. The position taken by both, whichever view was right, was at least logical. The Tribunal took something like an intermediate position and, as we pointed out earlier, there seems to be no logical basis for disallowing any portion of the claim.With reference to the assessment year 1943-44 the Tribunal pointed out that even the assessee admitted that the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!C. S. Y. Appavoo Pillai and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR636(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Gnanadhikam and his brothers, Innasimuthu and Sandanaswami, carried on business under the trade name C. S. Y. Appavoo Pillai and Sons. After Gnanadhikams death, his son Lourdusami took his place. It should be convenient to refer to this group as 'the family' in the rest of this judgment. This family was all along assessed to income-tax in the status of an association of persons.One of the lines of business of the family was timber, and it was common ground that on the profits of that business the family was assessed to income-tax under the 1918 Act. In 1920 Gnanadhikam, on behalf of the family, entered into a partnership with Arunachalam to carry on the business of contracts, mainly contracts with the South Indian Railway Company obtained in name of Arunachalam. The family was to finance the business, and, in addition to the interest on the sums advanced to the partnership, the family was entitled to a third share of the profits. On the share income of these profits a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Syed Gani Vs. State of Madras by Secy. to Govt. of Madras for Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad58; (1960)IILLJ352Mad; (1960)IILLJ352Mad
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. The petitioner asks for a writ of cer-tiorari to issue to quash the proceeding of the Conciliation Officer in memorandum Nos. 114940-LI/57-6 dated 14-5-1958, 66134-LI/58-1 dated 3-5-1958 and 22379-LI/59-8, dated 14-9-1959. The proved facts are the following:2. The petitioner was an employee as a bus conductor under the second respondent bus service, Sri Vaidyanathaswami Bus Service, from 1948. On 4-7-1957, the petitioner's services were terminated for what the petitioner calls an unjust cause. After making an attempt to get reinstated, the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Inspector, Lalgudi, Tiruchirapalli Dist. on 20-7-1957, for conciliation of the dispute between him and his employer. It is alleged no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to be present at the enquiry which was conducted by the Labour Inspector, and consequently, the reports of the Labour Inspector which purported to advise him to accept Rs. 500/- offered by the ma...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, Pollachi Vs. the Additional Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad104; [1960]40ITR338(Mad); (1961)1MLJ165
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is taken out for the purpose of staying the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act for the purpose of collecting the Income-tax due by the petitioner, and, to quash the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore, in regard thereto.2. This petitioner filed an application in this court under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, against the decision of the Income-tax Tribunal which upheld the assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no order for stay could be obtained in that proceeding and that therefore the petitioner had no adequate alternative remedy. In support of that contention he relies on the decision of the Andhra High Court in Narayana Rao v. Commr. of Income-tax, Hyderabad : [1956]29ITR222(AP) .The Bench in that case held that in a proper case the High Court has power under Section 151, C. P, C. and, under Article 227 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Motor Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Mohamed Mustafa Badsha and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad208; (1960)2MLJ202
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Madras Motor Insurance Co, Ltd, defendant 4, in an action in the court below for damages for rash and negligent driving if a motor car, which caused a very grave accident, killing the son of the two plaintiffs, by name Mohamed Mohideen. The appellant company apparently came into the suit as the insurer, to whom notice of the proceedings was given, and who was entitled to be made, a party and to defend the action, within the scope of Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939). The main defence of the appellant company is this.The concerned vehicle (MSZ. 2556) belonged to defendant 1 (Sukumar Productions) and was covered by an insurance policy with the appellant company, as well as by the certificate of registration in the name of the owner as required by the rules. The accident was on 13-1-1951 at about 3 p. m. The first defendant contended in the suit that he sold this motor car to defendant 2, one Sri N. Ramakrishnan, even on 8-1...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Madras Vs. the Addl. Commissioner for Workmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad425; (1960)IILLJ108Mad
(1) In February 1951, Prem Sagar, the second respondent, was holding a gazetted appointment with the Government of India as an Assistant Engineer. On 5-2-1951, he entered the service of the Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Madras, as a temporary Roads Engineer on a salary of Rs. 350. On 1-6-1952 he was promoted as Operating Engineer on a salary of Rs. 450 per month. In 1956 the designation of the post which he held was changed from Operating Engineer to Operations Assistant. But that did not affect him in any way. By the end of February, 1958 he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month.(2) In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions it is alleged that for sometime prior to August 1957, the work of the second respondent was unsatisfactory."He was un-co-operative, malingering and generally his productive capacity was below standard. This was made known to him, in August 1957 and he was advised that improvement was necessary. In September 1957, his work was again reviewed and still f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanthammal Vs. D.S. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad352; (1960)2MLJ484
1. On 17-12-1957, two persons named Kanthammal atid Kuppuswami Chetti, executed a promissory note for Rs. 10,000, in favour of one Ispahani. On 13-12-1950, Ispahani endorsed the note without recourse to one Rajalakshmi. Thereafter, Rajalakshmi instituted C. S. No. 64 of 1951 on the file of this court to recover the money due on the promissory note. At this time, a sum of Rs. 4500 lay to the credit of the first defendant Sn C. S. No. 42 of 1945 on the file of this court. On 4-3-1952, Rajalakshmi applied for attachment before judgment of this amount and attachment was ordered on 5-3-1952.But, by some mischance, the money was paid out to Kanthamma. Thereupon, Rajalakshmi applied to the court that a direction should be issued to Kanthammal to bring back the money. An order was accordingly made by Panchapakesa Ayyar J. who directed Kanthammal to bring back that money. Against that order an appeal (O S. A. No. 146 of 1952) was filed. But that appeal was dismissed. On 29-1-1954, Ramaswami J. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »