Chennai Court February 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.
Miya Hajee Ismail Sahib and Co. vs. the Regional Director, Employees' ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad7; [1961(2)FLR261]; (1960)IILLJ428Mad; (1960)IILLJ428Mad; (1961)1MLJ16
1. The appellants are the petitioners (Messrs, Miya Hajee Isroail Sahib and Co.), and the appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in Case No. 2 of 1956 on his file. The appeal has been argued with regard to the single question, whether the court below was right in holding that the Tannery of the petitioners (appellants) was a factory as defined in Section 2(xii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, daring the period in question.2. Now, in the Employees State Insurance Act, Act XXXIV of 1948, 'factory' is defined in Section 2(xii) as follows :"Factory means any premises including the pre-cincts thereof whereon 20 or more persons are working or were working on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Indian Mines Act, 1923, or a railway running shed...
D. Rm. Sp. Sv. Firm by Partner O. Rm. M.S.P.S.V.M. Meyyappa Chettiar V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad72
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee firm carried on a money-lending business abroad, in the territory then known as the Federated Malay States. In the course or its money-lending business it acquired and held several items of immoveable properties (houses) which, it was common ground, the firm always treated as part of its stock-in-trade. In computing the in-come of the assessee firm in the year of account which ended on 12-4-1948, for assessment to income-tax in the assessment year 1948-49, the income from these items of house property was computed under Section 9 of the Income-lax Act, and the quantum under that head was determined at 63.345 dollars. The assessee firm was also assessed to business profits tax under the provisions of the Business Profits Tax Act, 21 of 1947, and in that assessment the income from the house properties was included in the income from the business of the assessee. That was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal, and that led to a reference of the following ques...
T.S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar, Tiruchirapalli Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad517
Rajagopalan, J.(1) Chidambaram Chettiar, the Kartha of the joint family which was the assessee, was also the Director of the National Movientone Co., Ltd., Madras, to which we shall refer in the rest of this judgment for purposes of convenience as the company. The main line of business of the assessee family was money-lending. The assessee advanced fairly large sums of money to the company, for which the assessee family had a first charge over the assets of the company including the films.The company went into voluntary liquidation in 1939. The assessee took over a number of films from the company at a valuation in partial discharge of the debt due from the company to the assessee. The assessee wrote off the unrecovered balance as a bad debt, and that claim was allowed by the Income-tax Department in assessing the assessee from its profits in its money-lending business. One of the films so taken over was a Tamil Picture 'Mohini Rukmangada'.Even in 1938, that is before the company went ...
In Re: Athipalayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ450
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This batch of revision cases raises a point of considerable importance in the day-to-day administration of justice. It relates to announcing sentence before judgment which is the final decision of the Court intimated to the parties and the world at large by formal pronouncement of delivery in open Court by the trial Judge and signing and dating it simultaneously and thereby terminating the criminal proceedings finally (Halsbury 2nd Edition, Vol. 9), pages 260-264: Emperor v. Maheswara Kondayya (1908) 31 Mad. 543, Madho Singh v. Emperor (1940) 41 Cri.L.J. 725, Kuppuswami Rao v. The King , Hori Ram Singh v. Emperor , Surya Rao v. Sathiraju : AIR1948Mad510 , Surendra v. Stale of Uttar Pradesh : 1954CriLJ475 , Basanta Kumar Pal v. Kamini Mohan Pal A.I.R. 1957 Tri 55.2. One Sri K. Ramanujam, the Sub-Magistrate of Rasipuram, has convicted the accused in C.C. Nos. 2101, 2113, 2236 and 2257 of 1959 under Section 4(1)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act. In all these cases the...
O. Rm. Sp. Sv. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1960
Reported in: [1960]39ITR327(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee firm carried on money lending business a broad, in the territory then known as the Federated Malay States. In the course of its money-lending business it acquired and held several items of immovable properties (houses) which, it was common ground, the firm always treated as part of its stock-in-trade. In computing the income of the assessee firm in the year of account which ended on April 12, 1948, for the assessment to Income-tax in the assessment year 1948-49, the income from these items of house property was computed under section 9 of the Income-tax Act, and the quantum under that head was determined at 63,345 dollars. The assessee firm was also assessed to business profits tax under the provisions of the Business Profits Tax Act (21 of 1947), and in that assessment the income from the house properties was included in the income from the business of the assessee. That was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal, and that led to reference of the following...
R.K. Kamakshi Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad516; [1960]39ITR104(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.(1) We answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.(2) Under the terms of the contract between himself and the debtor, the assessee was entitled to the sum of Rs. 35,000, which was secured by an usufructuary mortgage; that was the principal of the debt advanced. That the debt was advanced in the course of the money-lending business of the assessee does not appear to have been seriously at issue at any stage between the Department and the assessee.The usufructuary mortgage was effected on 29-1-1944. After S. 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938 came into force, the parties entered into an agreement in the course of the accounting year, 1949-50, which was to this effect: on the basis that the debtor would be entitled to proportionate reduction of the principal in proportion to the period during which the mortgagee-assessee had already been in possession, the amount due from the debtor was worked out. The assessee accepted Rs. 12,...
S.M. Muthiah thevar, Paguneri Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad398; [1960]39ITR107(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.(1) The assessee took a today lease operative for what was known as the Abkari (Toddy) year 1-10-1943 to 30-9-1944. His own claim all along was that he sustained a loss over that contract as a whole. Whether that claim is well founded or not, it may not be necessary to decide at this stage. In response to a notice issued S. 34 of the act for the assessment year 1944-45, the assessee filed a return on 29-3-1946. In that return, he showed the whole period 1-10 1943 to 30-9-1944 as the 'previous year,' that is in, relation to the assessment year 1944-45, and in that return he claimed he had sustained a loss. on the same date. 29-3-1946, the assessee also filed a return for 1945-46 in which he treated the period 1-10-1944 to 30-9-1945 as the previous year in relation to assessment year 1945-46. For that period, 1-10-1944 to 30-9-1944. the assessee showed no income. It should be remembered that the toddy lease expired on 30-9-1944. Subsequently, the assessee filed an affidavi...
Dandapani Nadar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ434
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a Revision against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, that is, for manufacturing liquor or any intoxicating drug. The Police Officer on receipt of information that some persons are distilling illicit liquor at Vennar Padugai went with two Head Constables and three Constables for a raid. According to the case of the prosecution he saw accused 1 and 2 together distilling arrack in a still. Accused 1 was said to have been kindling the fire in the oven and accused 2 changing water in the pot. The Police Officer arrested both accused 1 and 2. Then the Officer put out the fire at the oven, dismantled the still, recovered the boiler pot, M.O. I which contained two gallons of boiling wash, the mud perforated pot, M.O. 2, stone rests, M.O. 3 series, the receiver chatti, M.O. 4, the mud condenser pot, M.O. 5 and the burnt firewood pieces, M.O. 8 series. Then after taking a sample of the wash from M.O. 1 ...
Ranganayaki Alias Meenakshi Ammal Vs. L. Bapu Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad159; (1960)IIMLJ270
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In O. S. No. 20 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, one Renganayaki alias Meenakshi Ammal obtained a decree on 8-8-1950 for, among other things, a sum of Rs. 10,500. From the decree, the defendant preferred an appeal, A. S. No. 556 of 1950, on the file of this Court. He also filed a C. M. P. for stay of execution. On 25th September 1950, the appellate court directed the judgment-debtor to deposit the money, & the decree-holder was permitted to withdraw it only on furnishing security. The deposit was made on 24th October 1950. On 22nd July 1954, the High Court confirmed the decree, in so far as it related to the sum of Rs. 10,500.From time to time the decreeholder withdrew portions of the amount deposited in court; but because of the condition requiting her to furnish security, she was not able to withdraw the whole amount. She was able to withdraw the balance finally on 30-9-1954, that is to say, after the High Court had disposed of ...
Om Prakash Gupta Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ50
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These appeals from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., arise out of four writ petitions, which were heard and disposed of by him on 25th November, 1959. They were heard together, because they related to the renewal of licences for conducting cinematograph shows in certain theatres in the City. W.A.. No. 151 of 1959 is from the judgment so far as it concerns W.P. No. 1002 of 1959 and relates to the theatre known as Rajkumari Talkies. The other three appeals arising out of W.P. Nos. 969 to 971 of 1959 relate to another theatre called Murugan Talkies. There was another writ, petition, W.P. No. 992 of 1959, which was also heard along with the other writ petitions; but there is no appeal before us in that petition.2. The two petitioners are lessees of the two aforesaid theatres. The contesting respondents are the owners of the two theatres and the talkie equipment installed in them. Both the Board of Revenue and the Commissioner of Police were made parties, to the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »