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.
M. M. MuthuwappA. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1107(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee carries on business in Ceylon. For the assessment year 1950-51, a notice under section 22(3) was served on him on June 21, 1950. No return was furnished. A further notice under section 22(4) was served on January 18, 1951. The assessee applied for time to comply with the notice. Though the assessees 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.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 under secti...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. East India Industries (Private) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR1086(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - 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 15B of the Income-tax Act. The trust had been created by the partners of a business firm, Messrs. K. Rajagopal and Co. This firm has 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 Venkataraman Chetti was appointed the trustee for administering these funds and on July 1, 1944, a trust deed was executed. It purports to be a declaration of trust made by the trustee, Venkataraman Chetti, and is witnessed by the two partners of the firm of Rajagopal and 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 n...
Management of Travancore Knitting Co., Tiruppur, Coimbatore Vs. K. Mut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad398; (1962)ILLJ365Mad
ORDER(1) This writ petition is to quash the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, holding that the order of the management, which is the petitioner in this Court, dismissing the first respondent from service was vitiated by want of good faith on its part and could not, therefore, be upheld. The labour court also directed reinstatement of the respondent with back wages.(2) The petitioner is a knitting company. It appears that in the place of the 'Adi Pandigai day', 'May day' was, at the request of the workmen, declared a holiday. Trouble, however, seems to have started when the Adi Pandigai neared, as the workmen apparently wanted that day also to be declared as a holiday in that connection the management framed two charges against the first respondent (1) that he prevented the other workers from going to work on Adi. Pandigai day, representing to them that it was a holiday and so they need not attend the factory, and (2) That in the petition sent by the workers on or about Adi Pandiga...
S. Arputam Chettiar Vs. C.P. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ449
Srinivasan, J.1. The short question that was agitated before the learned District Judge in the Civil Revision Petition was, whether the tenant had the right to sublet the premises. It is true that the tenancy was oral and had commenced prior to the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. An allegation was made that even prior to the passing of this Act the Tenant has been sub-letting the premises a version which was not accepted by the House Rent Controller who ordered eviction. As against that, there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, who thought on what appears to be a mis-construction of the facts that the tenant had been subletting the premises. Actually, evidence of sub-letting was available only from 1952 or thereabouts. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the order of eviction When the matter was brought before the District Judge in revision, he took the view that even if the original tenancy was an oral one which permitted the tenant to sub-let the premise...
The Coimbatore Pioneer Mills, Ltd., b Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1961
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ52
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. These three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been heard together, as they arise out of a common order of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Coimbatore, which is constituted as the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The petitioners are three different companies newly started and carrying on business as textile mills. As required by sections (1) of the Act, each of them submitted to the Certifying Officer Draft Standing Orders for adoption in the industrial establishment concerned. After complying with the provisions of Section 5 as to notice to workmen calling for their objections if any, and hearing them, the Certifying Officer certified the Standing Orders with certain alterations and modifications. To the extent to which the petitioners felt aggrieved against the certification, each of the petitioners filed a separate appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority. That Authority disposed of th...
Lakshminarayana Reddiar Vs. Singaravelu Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad24
Ganapatia Pillai, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, South Arcot, dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance of as agreement dated 3-8-1946, for sale of immovable properties, or, in the alternative for recovery of damages and the price advanced by the appellant under the agreement. 2. The admitted facts are the following. The properties in suit belonged to respondents. 1 and 2 who are members of an undivided Hindu family. The first respondent executed a mortgage over these properties in 1923 in favour of one Manjini Gounder for Rs. 2500. The mortgagee obtained a decree on this mortgage in O. S. No. 20 of 1937 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot, for sale of the mortgaged properties and assigned his decree to one Muthuvenkatapathi Reddi, who brought the properties to sale and the properties were sold to several auction purchasers. Thereupon the second respondent filed M. P. No. 302 of 1944 under Order 21...
Mosa Devadasan Vs. Kalikunji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad413
(1) The appellant in both the appeals was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 396 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsiff's court Kuzhithurai and his suit was for redemption of two items of property over which he claimed a jenman right. The trial court decreed the suit without costs. On appeal preferred by the defendants, the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the title put forward by the plaintiff and found that the right to redeem did not subsist and allowed the appeals and dismissed the suit with costs.(2) The only point for determination in these second appeals is whether the suit for redemption is barred by limitation(3) The appellant has not even given in his plaint the details of the mortgage which he wants to redeem in the suit. It appears from Ex. P. 12 in this case that the mortgage over suit item 1 was created in 19-11-1034 (ME). Under the Law of Travancore then in force, the period of redemption for a usufructuary mortgage was 50 years. The Indian Limitation Act has been extended ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the Estate of Late Sri T.P. Ramaswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ444
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to us under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act for decision:Whether any part of the income of the estate of the aforesaid testator (T.P. Ramaswami Pillai) is exempt under the Proviso of Section 4(3)(i) for assessment years 1950-51 to 1935-54?2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these: One T. P. Ramaswami Pillai who was carrying on business as Abkhari Contractor died on 23rd August, 1948, leaving considerable properties valued at nearly Rs. 20,00,000. There were also liabilities for very nearly that amount. One of the principal creditors was the Income-tax Department itself, which had to be paid nearly Rs. 6,34,018. On 25th April, 1948, T.P. Ramaswami Pillai executed a will substantially devoting his properties to a number of religious charities. The will stated that it was the intention of the testator that the charities which he himself was performing during his lifetime and certain other charities should...
V. Palanivelu Odayar Vs. P. Jagannadhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ164
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Revision Petition raises the question of the competency of an appeal to the Revenue Court from an order passed by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(2) of the Madras Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyals Protection Act, 1952. The Conciliation Officer, purporting to act under Section 12 (3) of the Act, directed the restoration of the respondent to the service of the petitioner who is the landlord. The landlord filed an appeal to the Revenue Court against the order so directing him to take back the pannaiyal. The Revenue Court has rejected the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies in regard to an order under Section 12 (3). Mr. Venkataraman, who appears for the landlord, contends that the order of the Revenue Court is wrong as the petitioner has a right of appeal by virtue of an express provision in that regard under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Section 13 refers to adjudication of disputes between the landlord and a pannaiyal. But that jurisdiction is g...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Estate of Late Sri T.P. Ramaswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR666(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - The following question has been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act for decision :'Whether any part of the income of the estate of the aforesaid testator (T.P. Ramaswami Pillai) is exempt under the proviso to section 4(3)(i) for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54 ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are these : One T.P. Ramaswami Pillai who was carrying on business as abkhari contractor died on August 23, 1948, leaving considerable properties valued at nearly Rs. 20,00,000. There were also liabilities for very nearly that amount. One of the principal creditors was the income-tax department itself, which had to be paid nearly Rs. 6,34,018. On April 25, 1948, T.P. Ramaswami Pillai executed a will substantially devoting his properties to a number of religious charities. The will stated that it was the intention of the testator that the charities which he himself was performing during his lifetime and certain other charities should be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »