Chennai Court January 1961 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.
Madhappa Goundar and anr. Vs. Karuppa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad343; (1962)1MLJ227
(1) The main question in the second, appeal is whether the rights of the plaintiff under the suit mortgage had been extinguished by merger thereof with those rights of his as a purchaser of the equity of redemption. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent in the second appeal, obtained a mortgage dated August 4, 1952, executed by defendants 1 and 2, to secure a loan of Rs. 400. On April 27, 1953, the mortgagors sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiff in consideration of a sum of Rs. 200 with a stipulation for reconveyance in their favour for the same price within a stated time. The mortgagors having assigned their right to have a reconveyance in their favour to defendants 3 and 4, at the request of the later, the plaintiff executed a reconveyance on April 11, 1956. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought the present suit to enforce the mortgage. The trial court negatived the plea of defendants 3 and 4 that the mortgage had become extinguished by merger, and decreed the suit, granti...
C. Arumugaswami Nadar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ12
Srinivasan, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was any material before the Tribunal to justify an addition on the ground that the assessee's books did not show the correct consumption of chlorate in the manufacture of matches?(2) If the answer to question No. 1 is in favour of the assessee, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there are materials to justify the rejection of the book results and to invoke the Proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act?2. The assessment years in question are 1947-48, the accounting year for which is the calendar year 1946, and 1949-50, the relevant calendar year being 1948. In respect of the assessment year 1947-48, an assessment was originally made on 2nd August, 1948 and the net income of Rs. 32,433 returned in respect of the match manufacturing business of the assessee was accepted subsequently in 1953, p...
M. Rm. M. M. N. Natarajan Chettiar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Iii Additio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR29(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - These appeals under the Letters Patent are from the judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., disposing of W.P. Nos. 864 to 869 of 1957, A common question of law arises in these appeals. The appellant was an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, III Additional Circle, Karaikudi. The assessments on the appellant for the years 1947-48 to 1952-53 were originally completed on different dates, which it is not material to mention, on particular total incomes. These assessments were made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments under section 34 of the Act and recomputed the appellants total incomes for the different years at figures, which were in excess of the original figures. There is no dispute as regards this reopening and reassessment under section 34 of the Act. But, in the demands based on the reassessment dated February 28, 1957 the Income-tax Officer included certain sums as interest payabl...
South Indian Lucifer Match Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR319(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred for the determination of this court is :'Whether there were materials for the Tribunal to hold that the firm was not genuine so as to disentitle it to registration under section 26A for the assessment year 1953-54 ?'The assessee firm owns the South India Lucifer Match Works which originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family consisting of a father, two major and two minor sons. On February 24, 1952, in the account books of the business, a sum of Rs. 25,000 was debited to the capital account of the Hindu undivided family and transferred to the capital accounts of Graham Durai, one of the adult sons, and Rajathi Ammal and Bhanumathim two daughters. Following upon this, a deed of partnership was entered into, the parties thereto being Ayya Nadar, the father, Graham Durai, the adult son, Rajathi Ammal and Bhanumati, the two married daughters of Ayya Nadar. Each of these was entitle to share the profits in the ratio of 3 : 3 : I : I respectively. In S...
C. Arumugaswami Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR237(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - Two questions have been referred to us under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case that was any material before the Tribunal of justify an addition on the ground that the assessees books did not show the correct consumption of chlorate in the manufacture or matche ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in favour of the assessee, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there are materials to justify the rejection of books results and to invoke the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Ac ?'The assessment years in question are 1947-48, the accounting year for which is the calendar year 1946, and 1949-50, the relevant calendar year being 1948. In respect of the assessment year 1947-48, an assessment was originally made on August 2, 1948, and the net income of Rs. 32,433, returned in respect of the match manufacturing business of the assessee was accepted. Subsequently in 1953, proceed...
Mohammad HussaIn and anr. Vs. Ganga Naicken Alias Gangama Naicken and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad264
(1) This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Ramaswami, J, in CMSA No. 102 of 1957 with his leave. It arises in the execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 128 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirepalli on 16-3-1946. The material part of this decree runs as follows :"This court doth order and decree that the defendants do put the plaintiff in possession of the property mentioned in the schedule hereunder and to day the plaintiff Rs. 135 for past mesne profits. This court doth further order and decree--(1) that the claim, for the balance of past mesne profits must be dismissed without costs. (2) that the mesne profits from date of plaint be determined by a separate petition under Or. 20 rule 12, C.P.C. (3) that the defendants do pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 42-6-0 being his proportionate costs in the suit and do bear their own costs Rs. 26."(2) E. P. No. 278 of 1946 was filed by the decreeholder for delivery of possession in pursuance ...
R. Sivaji Rao Saheb Seervai Vs. Akilandathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad417
(1) The State Government of Madras assigned two Items of property, 2 acres 12 cents comprised in R. S. No. 33/2, and 2 acres 92 cents in R. S. No. 338/2 in the village of Indalur, Tanjore taluk belonging to them in favour of Sivaji Rao Sahib Soorvai who claimed to be of the class of persons described as 'political sufferers' to whom grants of lands were being made in accordance with the Government orders issued from time to time. The assignment in favour of Sivaji Rao was dated 27-6-1950. A revenue patta was also issued in his favour on 12-1-1951. He could not however get possession of the assigned properties as he was met with the opposition of the persons in possession claiming to he lessees from the State Government under the scheme sponsored by the Government called 'The Grow More Food' campaign. Sivaji Rao was therefore compelled to institute a suit, O. S. No. 120 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru for recovery of possession of the properties covered by ...
Appu Goundar Vs. Munusami Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad395; (1962)1MLJ229
(1) These second appeals by the defendant arise out of two suits. O. S. No. 289 of 1955 was to recover a certain sum of money with interest said to he due on a usufructuary mortgage dated July 10, 1948 executed by the defendant. O. S. No. 492 of 1955 was for a declaration of the respondent's title to the suit property and injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession thereof. The circumstances in which the suits were brought were these. Originally the property admittedly belonged to the appellant. In execution of a small cause decree obtained against him the assignee-decree-holder one Krishnaswami Iyer purchased the suit property and obtained a sale certificate in his favour dated August 25, 1941. On July 10, 1948 under the terms of an arrangement under Ex. B.3, which is styled as an unregistered release deed executed by Krishnaswami Iyer in favour of the appellant the former relinquished his interest in the property in favour of the latter for consideration...
V. S. Arulanandam and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR229(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Arulanandam and Murugan were partners of a firm. Arulanandam resided in Ceylon while Murugan was a resident of Tuticorin, where the firm carried on its business. The firm applied for registration in the assessment year 1949-50, but that was refused by the Income-tax Officer. Against that order of refusal to register the firm, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That appeal was eventually disposed of on June 21, 1955. The appeal was allowed and registration was granted under section 26A of the Income-tax Act.Pending disposal of the appeal with reference to the assessment year 1949-50, the Income-tax Officer completed the assessments for 1952-53 and 1953-54 also. We may notice that the firm did not ask for registration in 1950-51. It applied for registration in 1951-50 but that was also refused. It applied for registration in 1951-52 but that was also refused. Registration was refused for 1952-53 and 1953-54 and the unregistered fir...
Marthandan Velar Subramanian Velar Vs. Ramasubramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad256
(1) The appellant is the 7th defendant in the court below in a suit by the plaintiff for declaration of his title to certain properties after setting aside certain alienations, for recovery of those properties with mesne profits and allied reliefs. We are not now concerned with most of the matters in controversy decided in this suit as between the parties. We are concerned exclusively with a mortgage executed by a life estate holder Saradambal (Ex. XIV-Ex B) in favour of the 7th defendant (appellant) for Rs. 1000 on 32-12-1124. M. E.(2) There are two simple questions for determination in this appeal. The first is this whether this life estate holder (Saradambal) had the power to make this disposal of property inter vivos during her period of enjoyment. The second is whether mortgage itself was supported by consideration, with reference to its constituent items and if so to what extent.(3) The facts are that one Sundararaja Iyer was the father of three daughters of whom Saradambal was o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »