Chennai Court March 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: K.R.P.L. Chockalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ425
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against an order passed by the Collector and Additional District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram at Madurai on a letter from the Home Department, Madras, to the Additional District Magistrate, Madurai, which letter in turn was necessitated by a communication from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for the extradition of the petitioner herein, against whom a complaint was laid before the Chief Magistrate, Colombo, in C.C No. 28703/A on his file for the offence of criminal breach of trust. Under the Memorandum, the. Additional District Magistrate was to make an enquiry under sectibn 3 of the Indian Extradition Act, The communication from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, was one under Section 9 of the Indian Extradition Act. The Additional District Magistrate, after making an enquiry, has held that a prima facie case has been made out arjd has committed the petitioner to prison to await the orders of the Central Gover...
A. Gajapathi Naidu Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad14; [1960]40ITR282(Mad); (1961)1MLJ48
Ramachandra Iyer, J. 1. The following questions have been referred under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act: '1. Whether the sum of Rs. 12,447 is assessable to income-tax? 2. If so, whether it has been rightly assessed inthe assessment year 1951-52?'The assessee owns a bakery and a provisionshop and he runs also a restaurant. Healso takes contracts for the supply of bread or otherprovisions to institutions like a hospital. The assessee's year of account ends with the financial year,namely, 31st of March. During the year of accountending with 31-3-1949 (corresponding assessmentyear being 1949-50) the assessee entered into a contract with the Government for the supply of breadto the Stanly Hospital, Madras, at certain rates.Those rates were, however, found to be uneconomical. Representations were made to the Government, it is said, after the close of the year for relieving the contractor from, the loss sustained in thesupply of bread. The Government acceded to the request and p...
Mohan Ram (Minor) and ors. Vs. T.L. Sundararamier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ30
: On this expression of the Full Bench opinion, viz., that an executing court cannot investigate that the property which has been sold is an inalienable service inam when there is no foundation for it either in the plaint or in the written statement or issues or judgment in the mortgage suit, this Civil Miscellaneous appeal has got to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.(39) The learned Advocate, Mr. Champakesa Aiyangar, pressed on me on the other hand that he is in possession of respectable evidence part of which he placed before the executing court and a partition deed, which he produced today and which naturally I am not prepared to look into, to show that the property in question is an alienable service inam and that it was contrary to the public policy to sell and this would enable him to file a separate suit, and that a little time therefore should be given to him to file such a suit, and that till then the executing court may stay its hands and not deliver possession. The resul...
A.M.S. Mohammed Kasim Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad85
(1) The petitioner was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, for offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B and Sec. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947, and sentenced to six months R. I., for the offence under Sec. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and for a similar term for the offence under S. 8(2) read with S. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the sentences to run concurrently. In appeal the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were set aside but the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act were confirmed.(2) The circumstances under which the petitioner was tried and convicted are these: The petitioner was a passenger bound for Ceylon. He came to the Customs baggage shed at Danushkadipier on 5-2-1958 for embarkation. He made a declaration in Ex. P-1 that he had only Rs. ...
A. S. Sivan Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR450(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee, who was assessed to income-tax both in Indian and in Ceylon, applied for relief from double taxation under the rules framed with reference to Ceylon under section 49A of the Income-tax Act. The claim was with reference to the assessment years 1943-44 and 1945-46. The assessee claimed with reference to 1943-44 that he had been assessed to a tax of Rs. 3,000 in Ceylon for the same period and that he had paid that tax in two instalments of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 2,000. The assessment order and the receipts for the payment of the assessed tax were produced in evidence. With reference to 1945-46, the tax assessed in Ceylon was Rs. 1,785.21 and the assessee produced a copy of the assessment order as well as the receipts for the payment of the assessed tax.What rule 3 required was that the assessee should prove to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer that the assessee had paid by deduction or otherwise the Ceylon tax for the corresponding year in Ceylon on the...
P.K. Varadaraja Gounder Vs. P.A. Narasimhalu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ826
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. In S.R. No. 32806 of 1957, Ramaswami, J. has held that (1) as a remedy by way of appeal lies against the order complained of no revision would lie; (2) that the Assistant Judge, City Civil Court should be deemed to be subordinate to the Principal City Civil Judge's Court Within the meaning of Section 476-B read with Section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. It follows that an appeal against the order complained of would lie to the Principal Judge, the revision petition cannot be entertained.Annexure (Office note):3. This S.B. is sought to be presented as a civil revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 10-3-1959 in I.A. 1127 of 1957 in O.S. No. 1302 of 1955, on the file of the first Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. That application was under Section 476 Cri.P.C. seeking sanction of a complaint to the court of any Presidency Magistrate, Madras so that the respondent therein may be tried for the offences under Section...
Bharani Pictures Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR474(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER J. - The following question were referred to us under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in including the entire amount of Rs. 75,815 in the income of the assessee in the year of account without allocating the same on the time basis after allowing the depreciation only at 60 per cent. into account 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 32,683 does not amount to a capital receipt not liable to be assessed ?'The questions arise in relation to the assessment of the Bharani Pictures for the year 1949-50, the year of account ending with December 31, 1948. The assessee is a registered firm consisting of two partners, Mrs. P. Bhanumathi, a cinema actress, the her husband, P. Ramakrishna Rao. The firm was engaged in the business of producing cinematograph films, and it commenced its business in September, 1945. The first of the two questions...
Sakthi Alias Thayammal Vs. Kuppathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad394; (1960)2MLJ89
ORDER(1) This civil miscellaneous appeal raises a question of great contemporary significance and some legal interest, though the facts themselves are extremely simple. The facts are that in I. A. No. 1289 of 1959 in O. P. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, the present appellant (the property guardian of a minor sought, under S. 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), for permission to sell 55 standard acres of lands belonging to the minor. The legal principles which are applicable to the matter are clear, and not in dispute. The interest of this case arises, not from any difficulty with regard to the interpretation of the sections of law, but from the peculiar and, exceptional grounds upon which necessity for the alienation was sought to be based.Section 31 of the same Act lays down that such permission ought not to be granted by the court 'except in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the ward. ' Section 31 sub sections ...
Associated Oil Mills Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad79; [1960]40ITR118(Mad); (1960)2MLJ282
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act;-- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the sum of Rs. 63,259, received by the assessee from the Government is income and can be brought to tax under any of the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act.' The assessee is a private limited company, which commenced business at Madras in 1941, in the purchase and sale of groundnuts, kernel, oil and cake etc. Thereafter, it acquired R. S. No. 458/1, measuring 4 acres 15 cents in Ammanur village, Arkonam, for the purpose of erecting an oil mill. In course of time, a building was put up for housing the machinery for the manufacture of oil. The property was, however, requisitioned by the Collector of Chingleput by an Order dated the 20th May 1942, for the use of the Military personnel; possession was taken by the Government three day later. The assessee, who normally would have commenced working of the mill, had...
S. Natesa Pillai Vs. Jayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad515; 1960CriLJ1470
ORDER(1) This is a revision petition filed by the husband against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, who refused to set aside the order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner herein. In M. C. No. 38 of 1957 the respondent got an order of maintenance against the petitioner herein. As per that order she is getting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 80 per month. It is alleged by the petitioner that subsequently the respondent came and lived with him and then again separated.(2) After the separation, a further attempt was made to reconcile them. In this further attempt a sale deed was also executed for the arrears of maintenance and before the Panchayatdars an agreement Ex. P-2 was signed by both the husband and the wife stating that they will live together. The evidence of P.W. 2 who was a Panchayatdar, shows that at the Panchayat they suggested that a house must be fixed at Ayanavaram for the parties to live together.(3) Exh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »