Chennai Court March 1960 Judgments
G. Lakshmi Rajyam Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ276
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The assessee, an actress, was engaged to take the part of heroine in a cinematograph film entitled 'Samsaram' produced by a firm of partners, carrying on business in the name of Sadhana Pictures. There was no dispute that the assessee had been paid all that was due to her under the contract of service. The picture, which was released to the public in December, 1950, was a great success. On 5th May, 1951, Ranganatha Das, who had half a share in the Sadhana Pictures executed a document in favour of the assessee, agreeing to pay her a fourth of his share of the realisations from the picture; the assessee was to* have no liability, if it were to turn out that there was a loss in the picture. The agreement to pay a share in the future realisations from the picture was purely a gratuitous and voluntary act on the part of Ranganatha Das. Two months later, he married the assessee. That circumstance, however, is mentioned only to be dismissed as having no bearing on the q...
Tag this Judgment!C. Lakshmi Rajyam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR340(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - The assessee, an actress, was engaged to to take the part of heroine in a cinematograph film entitled Samsaram produced by a firm of partners, carrying on business in the name of Sadhana Pictures. There was no dispute that the assessee had been paid all that was due to her under the contract of service. The picture, which was released to the public, in December, 1950, was a great success. On May 5, 1951, Ranganatha Dass, who had half a share in the Sadhana Pictures executed a document in favour of the assessee, agreeing to pay her a fourth of his share of the realisations from the picture; the assessee was to have no liability, if it were to turn out that there was a loss in the picture. The agreement to pay a share in the future realisations from the picture was purely a gratuitous and voluntary act on the part of Ranganatha Dass. Two months later, he married the assessee. That circumstance, however, is mentioned only to be dismissed as having no bearing on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Brothers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR568(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The questions referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act were :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sum of Rs. 14,625 representing expenses of the foreign tour of one of the directors is allowable as a proper deduction from the assessable profits under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'2. (a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 41,000 received by the assessee company is exempt under section 4(3)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?(b) If the answer is in the negative, whether it is assessable under the head business under section 10 or under the head capital gains under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'With reference to the first question, the facts found were that Mr. Raman who was one of the directors of the assessee firm was deputed by the Mettur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd. of which the assessee firm was the managing agent, to attend a conference of Chemi...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Govindarajulu Vs. Lakshmi Ammal by Her Agent P.V. Narasimhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad158; (1960)2MLJ274
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, in I. A. No. 246 of 1959 in O. S. No. 71 of 1957. The defendant is the petitioner.2. On the plaintiff's application under Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the lower court permitted one Panchanatha Mudaliar to be examined as a witness on commission, It is common ground that Panchanatha Mudaliar is a material witness. The witness was sought to be examined on commission on the ground that he was very weak and infirm and confined to bed and that it was physically impossible for him to come to court or be brought to court. The affidavit in support of the application was accompanied by a medical certificate dated 29-7-1959, granted by Dr. P. T. Srinivasan, Honorary Assistant Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Madras.The certificate stated that Panchanatha Mudaliar was suffering from an attack of acute fever with hyperlipens and palpitation of the heart and that ...
Tag this Judgment!The State Electricity Board Vs. K. Govindarajulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad571; (1960)IIMLJ245
(1) This is a petition to revise the decree of the learned District Munsif of Sankari at Salem in S. C. S. No. 366 of 1958 dismissing the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiff which is the State Electricity Board, is the petitioner.(2) The suit was to recover a certain sum of money being the cost of a pole which had been broken by the 2nd defendant's lorry on 22-7-1955 and the loss of revenue to the plaintiff on account of interruption of electric supply to consumers for six hours. The plaintiff Board came into existence on and from 1-7-1957. It instituted the suit on 5-4-1958. The lower Court dismissed the suit in the view that the suit was governed by Art. 36 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, and should have been filed within two years from the date when misfeasance occurred. This view is supported by the decision in Corporation of Madras v. B. D. Kothandapani Chetti, 1958-2 Mad LJ 377: (AIR 1958 Mad 620). It was held in that case that a suit ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govinda Chetty and ors. Vs. K. Lingaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ205
1. This appeal involves an interesting question relating to the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951. We are not concerned here with most of the particulars of evidence, but we may briefly note that one Rukmani Ammal endowed certain properties by a registered settlement deed, dated 19th March, 1906, for the celebration of a certain festival in the month of Thai in Sri Veeraraghavaswami Temple at Trivellore. She appointed six persons as executors, directed them to collect rents and to hand over the rents to two of the executors for the administration of the endowment. It is alleged that the properties have since come into the possession of the first defendant, who is misappropriating the rentals, and not administering the religious trust in a proper manner.2. The matter came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Religious Endowments, Coimbatore, who initiated proceedings suo motu under Section 58(1) of Act XIX of 1951. But as that...
Tag this Judgment!Subbanna Gounder Vs. Karuna V. Elliah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ360
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Section 6-B of Act XXV of 1955 against, an order passed for the eviction of the petitioners in O.P. No. 138 of 1959, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore. The Respondent, who is the landlord, claimed inter alia that, as the petitioner had used a portion of the land; leased for agricultural operations for the purpose of putting a building and thus diverted the land to purposes unconnected with agriculture, he was liable to be evicted. The petitioner contended that the land was not taken on lease for agricultural purposes, but for the purpose of putting up buildings. The property leased is situate within the limits of the Goimbatore Municipality. The Madras City Tenants' Protection Act was extended to Goimbatore Town on 19th February, 1958. The petitioner pleaded that he had put up buildings on the property, and that he was entitled to the protection afforded by the enactment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, after consi...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshisundaram and ors. Vs. Srinivasaga Reddiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1960
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ44
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit brought by them as reversioners for a declaration that an alienation by the 2nd defendant of her husband's properties was not for necessity and for recovery of possession of the suit properties. Disagreeing with the trial Court, the first appellate Court granted a decree on the view that the alienation was not for necessity. Venkatadri, J., without going into the question of necessity reversed the judgment of the first appellate Court on the ground that in view of the fact that the widow continued to be in possession even after the sale, the property had vested in her absolutely with the result the reversioners would not be entitled to succeed to it. But the learned Judge granted leave to appeal.2. The sale dated 2nd May, 1956, executed by the widow to the 1st defendant was for a sum of Rs. 6,000 of which the bulk of the consideration was recited to be in discharge of three earlier promissory notes. There was due ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Seethai Achai Vs. Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad69; [1960]40ITR170(Mad); (1960)2MLJ259
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was a shareholder in Soma-sundaram Mills (Private) Ltd., a company which admittedly fell within the scope of Section 23-A of the Indian Income-tax Act.2. For the assessment year 1950-51, the previous accounting year for which ended on 1-4-1950, the assessee was assessed to tax, and that assessment was completed on 31-5-1953. Subsequently, on 31-3-1957, an order was passed against Soma-sundaram Mills, Ltd., under Section 23-A of the Act. The date of the general meeting, with reference to which the assessee's divided income must be deemed to have accrued under Section 23-A, was 22-9-1949, which fell within the year of account, for which the assessee was liable to be assessed in the assessment year 1950-51. After an order had been passed on 31-3-1957, under Section 23-A of the Act, proceedings were taken to reopen the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1950-51. A notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act,...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Umayal Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad564; (1960)2MLJ550
Jagadisan, J.(1) C. S. No. 311 of 1951 on the file of the Original Side of this court was a suit instituted by one Sethappa Chettiar against one Ramanathan Chettiar for partition and separate possession of a half share of alleged joint family properties described in schedules B, C and D attached to the plaint and for rendition of accounts in respect of the joint family assets and for other appropriate reliefs usual and incidental in partition actions. For purposes of court fee the plaintiff valued the claim for accounts at Rs. 1000 under S. 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act and paid an ad valorem court fee of Rs. 112-7-0.In regard to the relief for partition a fixed court fee of Rs. 100 was paid purporting to be under Art. 17-B (Madras) of Sch. II of the Court-fees Act. For the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff however gave the value as Rs. 15 lakhs. The value of Rs. 15 lakhs was arrived at by valuing the entire properties covered by the schedules to the plaint at Rs. 30 lakhs and co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »