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.
Ajax Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR297(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The assessee was a public limited liability company. When the company was formed with a share capital of Rs. 6 lakhs, the objectives of the company as set out in clause 5 of the memorandum of association were to manufacture abrasives and steel products. The late Dewan Bahadur A.M. Murugappa Chettiar and his three sons, Murugappa, Vellayan (since deceased) and Arunachalam, who constituted Murugappa and Sons, were the managing agents of the assessee company. Besides the managing agency, that family had a large interest in the shareholding. The Tribunal observed that Murugappa and his sons were 'vitally interested' in the company. Details of the shareholding were not furnished in the record, and when we asked the learned counsel for the assessee if that information was available, he said that out of 6,000 shares, Murugappa and his sons held 1,063 shares, while their wives held another 2,855 shares. None the less, the position remained that it was a public company in which...
M.K. Krishnamurthy, Ex-proprietor, Photo Litho Press, Madras 1 Vs. Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad285; [1961(2)FLR94]; (1960)IILLJ430Mad; (1960)IILLJ430Mad
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Rajagopalan, J. in W.P. No. 602 of 1954, by which he refused to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I. D. No. 19 of 1953, The appellant was the sole proprietor of a business carried on under the name of Photo Litho Press. On 20-2-1953, the workers employed in this press through their Union made certain demands which the appellant did not comply with.Thereupon conciliation proceedings were commenced on 26-3-1953. When these proceedings for conciliation were pending, on 11-4-1953, the appellant issued a notice informing his employees that since he was unable to run the press owing to domestic and other circumstances their services would not be required from that day and he offerred to pay them one month's wages in lieu of notice.The conciliation officer reported about his failure to bring about conciliation. Thereupon the Government of Madras in exercise of their powers un...
Rangachari Vs. the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad35
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner holds the post which he described as that of a Law Assistant and the correct designation of which would appear to be court inspector, included in class III of the Railway service. From what has been stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the department, it would be seen that there were four grades of court inspectors, all of them included in class III: (1) Court Inspectors on Rs. 200-300; (2) Court Inspectors on Rs. 260-350; (3) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 300-400; and (4) Chief Court Inspectors on Rs. 360-500. Candidates are recruited to the last of these grades, that is, on Rs. 200-300 partly directly and partly by selection, which apparently means selection from other categories of the railway service.The pasts in the three higher grades are filled by promotions; and the posts in the three higher grades have been classified selection posts for the purpose of selecting candidates from the lower grade For promotion to the next h...
Subramania Mudaliar Vs. Ammapet Co-operative Weavers Production and Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad289; (1960)2MLJ477
Somasundaram, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He brought the suit for specific performance of an alleged contract to sell the building belonging to the respondent. The respondent is a co-operative society.2. The case for the plaintiff is this. In the end of January 1956 the defendant-society called for offers for the sale of the house. There were offers upto Rs. 2500. The plaintiff gave a petition for purchase for Rs. 2550. The Board lay its resolution No. 391 dated 3-2-1956 accepted the plaintiff's offer and authorised a sale deed to be executed by the president if the sale could be concluded before 2-3-1956.The plaintiff was informed by the president of this resolution and subsequently he was told that a draft sale deed might be submitted after Mahamaham, that is to say, by about 7-3-1956. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a draft sale deed, but the defendant did not sell the house because the sale was not completed before 2-3-1956, according to the resolution. This answer of...
R. K. Murthi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR379(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - The following question has been referred to us under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding 5/6ths of dividend income from the shares held by the assessees wife in Messrs. Taylor and Co. (Madras) Ltd. should be included in the total income of the assessee under the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Ac ?'The assessee, Mr. R. K. Murthi, was a director of Messrs. Taylor and Co. (Madras) Ltd., since 1945. During the assessment years from 1948-49 to 1951-52, he was deriving an income from the salary and dividends etc. from the company. In his own name he held 967 shares in the company. the other directors of the company were Messrs. Thompson and Jackson. On 21st March, 1947, Mr. Jackson sold 2,098 shares out of 5,000 shares held by him to Mrs. R. K. Murthi. The consideration for the sale was a sum of Rs. 24,000. Rs. 4,000 was paid immediately in cash by the lady, that amount having been obtaine...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras/Bombay Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR38(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER J. - Free Press of India (Madras) Ltd., a Private limited company (hereinafter referred to as the Free Press Company) was carrying on business as printers and publishers of certain newspapers, namely, the Indian Express, Dinamani and Andhra Prabha at Madras, and Eastern Express and Bharat at Calcutta. During the course of the year 1946, the company also acquired rights in respect of the Sunday Standard and Morning Standard at Bombay. There were only two shareholders in the company, and their holdings were as follows :1.Ramnath Goenka (managing director)242 shares of Rs. 12,100Rs.50 each.2.Mahadeolal Dalmia (director)2,489 shares of Rs. 50 eachRs. 1,24,450On April 22, 1946, another private limited company named the Express Newspapers Ltd., (to be referred to hereafter as the Express Company) was formed with the following shareholders.1.Ramnath Goenka (Mg. Director)1,179 shares of Rs. 1000 eachRs. 11,79,0002.Mahadeolal Dalmia (Director)758 shares of Rs. 1000 eachRs. 7,58...
V. S. P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR278(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee was a Hindu undivided family of which subramania Chettiar was the Kartha. He carried on the money-lending business of the family in Ceylon. Consistent with the trade practice of the members of his community Nattukottai Chettiars he took over whenever necessity for that arose, immovable properties from his debtors in discharge of their debts and those properties were always treated as part of the stock-in-trade of the money-lending business. Whenever one of these properties was sold and the sale proceeds exceeded the amount of the debt for which that property had been taken that excess was treated as the trading profit of the money-lending business. Independent of such acquisitions of immovable property the assessee purchased in 1941, in partnership with one Subramania Pillai a tea estate known as Cattaratenne estate. The assessee had a two-thirds share, and Subramania Pillai had the remaining one-third. The purchase price was Rs. 2,01,000. Towards his sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›