Chennai Court April 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.
S.V. Nannuswami and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1960
Reported in: [1960]11STC726(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question of law that arises for determination in each of these petitions is the same and all the petitions can be disposed of by a single order.2. The petitioners were dealers liable to be assessed on their turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, IX of 1939. They were dealers in textile goods and the goods handled by them in the relevant assessment years included cloth of superfine quality. T.C. No. 113 of 1958 arose out of the assessment proceedings for 1954-55 and the others related to the assessment year 1955-56. But the turnover of the petitioners on which they were taxed was all subsequent to 23rd August, 1954. The provisions of Section 3(2) of Act IX of 1939 were amended by Section 2 of Madras Act 23 of 1957 and under Section 1(2) of the Amending Act, the amendment was given retrospective effect from 23rd August, 1954.3. The statutory provision which we have to consider now is the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act and that proviso as amended ...
N.H.M. Pandian and anr. Vs. the Board of Revenue (S.E.) by Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ248
ORDER1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certorari to set aside the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 30th April, 1955, negativing the claims of the petitioners, preferred under Section 18(4) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The first petitioner was the landholder of the Uthumalai Zamindari, an impartible estate, which vested in the Government with effect from the notified date, 3rd January, 1951, under the provisions of the Act. He was the owner of the private market in Surandai, one of the villages included in the Zamindari estate. On the notified date the second petitioner was in possession of the market as a lessee under the first petitioner.3. The market was located in the bazaar, a busy business centre of Surandai, and occupied an extent of about 1.33 acres. The whole area was enclosed by a substantially built masonry compound wall ran...
Amrutanjan Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR21(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - This is a reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, arising at the instance of the Amrutanjan Co. Ltd., a public limited company. The late Mr. Nageswara Rao was having a business in the manufacture and sale of Amrutanjan, a pain balm. The company, the Amrutanjan Ltd., was formed in September, 1936, and was duly registered under the Indian Companies Act. The business relating to the manufacture and sale of the pain balm and allied products was transferred to the company, for consideration. The authorised capital of the company was Rs. 10,00,000 being composed of 7,000 ordinary shares and 3,000 preference shares of Rs. 5,50,000 - 2,500 ordinary shares and 3,000 preference shares. It is stated that the prospectus issued at the time of the formation of the company stated that dividends exceeding 6 12 per cent. would not be declared, till the reserve fund of the company reached to Rs. 3,50,000. Under the articles of association, the holder of a pref...
S.A.O.S. Karuppan Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ511
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in the presentation of an appeal against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, in A.S. No. 216 of 1956. The appeal is filed under Section 7(1) of the Madras Estates Supplementary Act, 1956 (Act XXX of 1956), which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act. The order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, which in turn set aside the order of the Settlement Officer IV, Tiruchirapalli, held that Inam Kudimeri was not an inam estate within Section 2(7) of the Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948), and that was passed on 15th May, 1957. Madras Act XXX of 1956 came into force on 3rd August, 1957. Under Section 7 of the Act, read with Section 11, a right of appeal is provided against the decisions of the Estate Abolition Tribunal to the Special Appellate Tribunal. Prior to the Act, there was no appeal against such orders. The petitioner, evidently oblivious of the right conferred, applied to this Court under Article 226 of t...
V. Jayaraj by Power of Attorney, V. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Additional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1960
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ12
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent dated 24.4.1989, which was passed pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 17.4.1989, cancelling the licence.2. The petitioner claims to be the power agent of one Jayaraj. This petition is filed with an affidavit sworn to by one Chandrasekaran as power of attorney.3. The aforesaid Jayaraj was a successful applicant for operating a retail outlet of the second respondent corporation in Perianegamam Village. S. No. 273/4 of Perianegamam village was chosen by the petitioner and he entered into a lease with the owner of the site by a registered lease deed for a period of 15 years. The first respondent granted no objection certificate to the second respondent corporation stating that he has no objection to the second respondent Corporation receiving the licence. On receipt of the said certificate a licence was granted to the petitioner for storing petroleum in tank in connection with pump o...
N.S.K.R. Karuppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ar. Vr. S. Somasundaram Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad122; [1961]31CompCas378(Mad); (1961)1MLJ323
Jagadisan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 6 of 1955, on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of the sum of Rs. 8,566-6-9 with interest and costs. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants.2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of one Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, and the third plaintiff is the grandson of Sinnakamppan by his son Veer appa. Veerappa died during the lifetime of Sinnakaruppan. They are members of a Hindu undivided family belonging to the Nagarathar Community, and residing at Kilasivalpatti, Ramanathapuram Dt. Their family vilasam is AR. VR. S. The six defendants in the suit are partners of a firm styled PL. RM. ST. carrying on money lending business at Dabein in Burma.Sinnakaruppan Chettiar drew a hundi for Rs. 5,748-8-0 on the A. VR. RM. firm Rangoon and sent the hundi to the PL. RM. ST. firm Dabein with instructions to cash the hundi and credit the proceeds to his Kilasivalpatti AR. VR. ...
Gulam Mohamood Vs. Ammani Ammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ351
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are related appeals by the plaintiff and the defendants respectively in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and possession through ejectment. The suit was decreed with costs as prayed for The plaintiff (landlord) purports to be aggrieved by the decree which is not in respect of the entire land according to the plaint schedule, but is specifically limited to the 5 or 6 huts thereon occupied by the defendants. The defendants (tenants) claimed to be aggrieved by the decree in ejectment, which totally ignores the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act (Act III of 1922 as modified by Act XIX of 1955) and particularly the rights given to tenants under Sections 3 and 11 of that Act. These related appeals thus raise the following issues : (i) whether the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 (Act III of 1922) applies to the present case, either as it stood, or as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955; (ii) whether, i...
The Home Insurance Company, Limited Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ340
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These three suits are instituted by the Home Insurance Company, Limited, a company incorporated in the United States of America against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras for damages in respect of three consignments of five hundred bales, two hundred bales and fifty bales of American cotton delivered to the defendant by the steamer s.s. 'Jalapanki' towards the end of April, 1952. The three suits were tried together as common questions of law and facts arise. The pleadings in the three suits are identical.2. Messrs. Finberg Trading Company, Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America consigned to Messrs. Baijnath Gangadhar & Company, Limited, Bombay, the three consignments of high density American cotton by the steamer 'Queen City' towards the end of January, 1952, for carriage to the port of Madras. The said goods were transferred at Bombay to s.s. 'Jalapanki' which arrived at Madras on the 27th of April, 1952. The landing of the goods was completed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›