Chennai Court October 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A. V. Appu Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR152(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - This consolidated reference arises out of assessment proceedings relating to years 1951-52 and 1952-53 of A. V. Appu Chettiar firm which carries on business in art silk goods at Salem. The question referred to us for our opinion is 'Whether the assessee is entitled to show its first purchase from the estate of the aforesaid is entitled to show its first purchase from the estate of the aforesaid testator (Appu Chettiar) at the market price of Rs. 3,53,064 on the date of such purchase.' The assessee firm was constituted on January 22, 1951; it consists of two partners, Venkatammal and Lakshmi, the daughters of one Appu Chettiar who originally owned the business. Appu Chettiar died on January 6, 1951, leaving a will dated June 13, 1945, under which the aforesaid two daughters became the residuary legatees. The will directed the two daughters to carry on the business under the vilasam of the testator as partners, each of them being entitled to a half share. It also ...
V. Sampathkumari Vs. M. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad50
Ganapatia Pillai, J. 1. I have already perused the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother Venkataraman J. and although I entirely agree in the conclusions he has reached, I would like to add a few words of my own on the questions of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Aijrangar, counsel for the appellant. 2. Three main contentions were urged by him. The first related to the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to this case. It consisted of two parts, the first part factual and the other part legal. The factual part consisted in the argument that the possession of the estate by the 2nd defendant amounted to alienation of the properties by the widows and consequently the widows should be held to be not in possession of the estate when alone the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act would be attracted. The argument has been dealt with fully by my learned brother and I do not propose to add anything more to what he has said. I agree with him that the ...
The Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: AIR1965Mad133
(1) The Madras Port Trust is the appellant in this appeal. They were sued by the two plaintiffs in C. S. Nos. 618 of 1956, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6807-14-0, as damages caused to a consignment of goods by reason of their alleged negligence. The learned City Civil Court Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery a sum of Rs. 4200-60 nP. holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages only in respect of 145 bundles, out of a total consignment of 235 bundles of salted hides and skins. The plaintiffs have preferred a memorandum of cross objections praying for a decree for the full amount claimed in the plaint.(2) The first plaintiff is a registered firm of partnership carrying on business at Madras. They obtained a shipment of 235 bundles of wet salted hides and skins from Calcutta per S. S. "Indian Merchant". The consignment was covered by a bill of lading No. 100 dated 21-7-1955, and was insured with the se...
The Madras Port Trust Vs. A.M. Safiulla and Company, a Partnership Fir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ29
Jagadisan, J.1. The Madras Port Trust is the appellant in this appeal. They were sued by the two plaintiffs in O.S. No. 618 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil-Court, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,807-14-0 as damages caused to a. consignment of goods by reason of their alleged negligence. The learned City Civil Court Judge granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,200.60 nP. holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages only in respect of 145 bundles, out of a total consignment of 235 bundles of salted hides and skins. The plaintiffs have preferred a memorandum of cross-objections praying for a decree for the full amount claimed in the plaint.2. The first plaintiff is a registered firm of partnership carrying on business at Madras. They obtained a shipment of 235 bundles of wet salted hides and skins from Calcutta per ' S. S. Indian Merchant.' The consignment was covered by a Bill of Lading No. 100, dated 21st July, 1955 and was...
V. Sampathkumari (Minor) by Next Friend and Husband C. Venkatachalapat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ464
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. I have already perused the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother Venkataraman, J., and, although I entirely agree in the conclusions he has reached, I would like to add a few words of my own on the questions of law raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, counsel for the appellant.2. Three main contentions were urged by him The first related to the applicability of Section 14.(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 to this case. It consisted of two parts, the first part factual and the other part legal. The factual part consisted in the argument that the possession of the estate by the second defendant amounted to alienation of the properties by the widows and consequently the widows should be held to be not in possession of the estate when alone the operation of Section 14(1) of the Act would be attracted. That argument has been dealt with fully by my learned brother and I do not propose to add anything more to what he has said. I agree with him that ...
A. Y. S. Parisutha Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1041(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In 1947, the assessee purchased a cinema house known as the Gnanam Talkies. At that time a lessee was in occupation and under the terms of the sale deed the lease was continued in force. The assessee was in receipt of Rs. 2,700 as annual rent and this income was being assessed in the assessees hands as income from property.The lease was due to expire in December, 1952. But the lessee did not surrender possession but continued as a tenant holding over on the expiry of the lease. A short while prior to the expiry of the lease, there had been a cyclone which had caused some damage to the cinema theatre. Apparently, the lessee carried out the necessary repairs and continued his business as a film exhibitor. On the failure of the lessee to surrender possession, the assessee took steps to evict him. His petition before the House Rent Controller failed. While the matter was pending appeal in the sub-court, the parties came to a compromise as a result of which the assessee paid...
Visalakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ93Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the preliminary award of the Labour Court, Madurai. The Government by their order dated 15 June 1959 referred to that Court for adjudication the question whether Sankaran working as a doffer in Visalakshi Mills, Ltd., should be appointed as a spinnner. His case was that he Joined the service of the mills in May 1955 as a ringframe spinner, that he was transferred on 1 September 1955 to work as a doffer on the assurance that as and when a vacancy arose in the spinning section, he would again be given the first chance of working as a spinner, that contrary to the aasurance they failed to appoint him as a spinner when occasions arose. According to Sankaran the management bypassed him with a view to victimize him for his trade union activities. He, therefore, raised a dispute in May 1958, which the labour officer having failed to conciliate, it was finally referred to adjudication.2. One of the grounds ...
M.M. Muthuwappa Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ180
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee carries on business in Ceylon. For the assessment year 1950-51, a notice under Section 22 (2) was served on him on 21st June, 1950. No return was furnished. A further notice under Section 22(4) was served on 18th January, 1951. The assessee applied for time to comply with the notice. Though the assessee's auditors promised to file a return before the end of January, there was no compliance with either of the notices issued by the Department. Accordingly, the Income-tax Officer proceeded to make an assessment under Section 23(4), that is a best of judgment assessment.2. The assessee took the matter up in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He objected to the quantum of the assessment. He also raised the plea that during the relevant accounting period, he was resident but not ordinarily resident, and that the assessment made on him on the basis of a resident and ordinarily resident was wrong. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner made an order und...
R. Sankaran Vs. Corporation of Madras by Its Licensing Inspector, Divi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ94
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, under Section 299 (1) (b) and Section 357 (1) of the Madras City Municipal Act and fined Rs. 10, in defaults simple imprisonment for 10 days. He has also been directed to pay licence fee of Rs. 15 and prosecution fee of Rs. 1.25, in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks. The complaint filed by the respondent, Corporation of Madras, by its Licence Inspector against the petitioner is for an offence under Section 287 read with Section 357 of the Madras City Municipal Act. But the article (Lactogen) stored by the appellant was not one of the articles mentioned in Schedule 6 of the Madras City Municipal Act, and the learned Sixth Presidency Magistrate, has rightly held that the Section 287 was inapplicable to the facts of this case. He, however, proceeded to convict the accused under Section 299 (1) (b), which provides that no person shall without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence fr...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the East India Industries (Private) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ191
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee, the East India Industries Ltd., paid a donation of Rs. 7,500 to a trust called the Agastyar Trust and claimed exemption from tax under Section 15-B, of the Income-tax Act. The trust had been created by the partners of a business firm, Messrs. K. Rajagopal & Co. This firm had been carrying on business in waste paper and under the terms of the partnership was setting apart 80 per cent. of the profits for charitable and religious purposes. One Venkatarama Chetti was appointed the trustee for administering these funds, and on 1st July, 1944, a trust deed was executed. It purports to be a declaration of trust made by the trustee Venkatarama Chetti and is witnessed by the two partners of the firm of Rajagopal & Co. We shall presently refer to the objects of the trust. But in so far as the assessee who made the donation to the trust is concerned, his claim to exemption from income-tax was negatived by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the trust does not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »