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.
Pudukottah Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR352(Mad)
RAMCHANDRA IYER C.J. - The following question has been referred to us for opinion :'Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire profits on the sale of yarn accrued in the taxable territories ?'The assessee is a private limited company incorporated, having its registered office at Usilampatti, in the erstwhile Pudukottah State, which merged with the Indian Union on August 1, 1949. In 1944, the company entered into an agreement with Thaigesaralai Mills, a spinning mill at Usilampatti, by which it became the sole distributors of all yarn produced in the mills. Some time thereafter, the sale of yarn produced in cotton mills became subject to certain regulations, under which yarn could be sold only to the nominees of the Textile Controller at Bombay. The control order did not, however, affect the agreement which the assessee had with the mills. The Textile Controller made allotments to various applicants for the purchase of yarn pro...
P. Ramakrishna Sastry Vs. C.T.S. Raganayakulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad354
(1) The petitioner, P. Ramakrishna Sastri, prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the rescue and release of his daughter, Kumari Girija Sastri, alleged, to be a minor, from the improper detention and wrongful custody of her by the respondents and for the restoration of her custody to him. The petitioner avers that his daughter was living with him at Madras, and that on 12-4-1961 taking advantage of his absence from town at Masulipatam, the respondents kidnapped her from his lawful custody, and that she is now leading a shameful life having illicit intimacy with the first respondent and living a life of prostitution for his benefit and on his compulsion,. The respondents are not in any way related to the. petitioner or his daughter. The first respondent is described by the petitioner in, his affidavit in support of the application as an "unemployed vagrant" and the second respondent is stated to be "a make up man" employed in the motion picture industry. The pe...
Arumoorthi Chettiar Vs. Secondary Education Committee of Vallala Sanga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad360
(1) This appeal arises From A. S. No. 40 of 1957 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, which was tiled against O. S. No. 8 of 1957, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The defendant is the appellant herein. The facts are briefly as follows. One Sankaranarayana Pillai owned a block of land comprising of several survey numbers and extending in area, 111 acres and 34 cents. They were entered in patta No. 1349 in his name in the revenue records. On 22-7-1943, under the sale deed, Ex. B. 23, he sold 87 acres 28 cents out of the said block to two persons, Si Palamandi Thevar and Sa Palaniandi Thevar. Subsequently, a document Ex. 134 dated 23-8-1949 was executed by Sankaranarayana Pillai to the two vendees. Since the major controversy in the suit has arisen on account of Ex. B4 its purport has to be given briefly. It states that the entire 111 acres and odd (comprised in the block) were agreed to be sold for Rs. 3000 under Ex. B. 23 that by mutual mistak...
In Re: Muthukrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ95
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Villupuram of an offence under Section 4(1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act for transporting liquor bottles, of which eight were half bottles of Highland whisky, four half bottles of Koday's old whisky and four half bottles of Sovereign pure brandy, from Pondicherry to Villupuram. The case for the prosecution was that at 10-20 p.m. on 13th July, 1961, the Sub-Inspector belonging to the Villupuram Railway Police was watching for prohibition offences at the Villupuram Railway Station platform. At the time, he stopped the petitioner and on suspicion searched him with the result that he was found to have a bag containing the bottles of whisky and brandy. Along with the bottles was seized also a third-class Railway ticket from Pondicherry to Villupuram. According to the prosecution, a mahazar was prepared attested by two witnesses for the seizure of the bottles of whisky and brandy, as also the Railway ticket. The...
S. K. Ar. K. Ar. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR336(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - The assessee belongs to the Nattukottai Chetty community. He was employed as an agent of the Chettinad Bank in Ceylon till 1942. During the course of the year he returned to India and established for himself a business in yarn and paper at Madurai. The assessees son-in-law was during all material times having a money-lending business at Colombo. In December, 1948, the assessee went for a short holiday to Ceylon for about 11 days. Admittedly, the assessee then had no idea of starting or doing any business or making an investment in that country. The Chettinad Bank was then closing down. Amongst its assets in that country was a coconut tope of an extent of 149 acres. The assessee got information that the bank was selling the property and bought it for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000. Having no monies of his own at that place, the assessee borrowed the amount necessary for the purchase of the property partly from his son-in-law and partly from certain others. He then employe...
In Re: P. Mohammud Sheriff Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ380
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner was convicted Under Section 16 (1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, it is in evidence that on 12-8-1959, at about 9-10 a.m. the food inspector of the Ayyampet Pan-chayat Board visited the business premises of the petitioner where he was vending gingelly oil, purchased a quantity of the oil and when it was sent for chemical analysis, it was found to contain 6.8 per cent of oleic acid. These facts are not disputed.2. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the sample of the oil was taken on 12-8-1959, actually it was analysed by the chemical analyst only On 25-8-1959, and the certificate was issued only on 13-2-1960, and that the presence of oleic acid in the gingelly oil in excess of the permitted limit might possibly have been due to the delay of H days in analysing the sample. That there was a delay of 11 days is undoubted. The only question is whether the excess of oleic acid over the ...
The Tamil Nad Non-gazetted Government Officers Union, Madras and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad234; [1962(5)FLR168]; (1962)ILLJ753Mad
(1) The Tamil Nad Non-Gazetted Government Officer's Union is a Services Association which has been recognised by Government, and the membership of which is open, according to Rule 7 of its constitution, to all Non-Gazetted Government Officers employed under the Government of Madras except the Executive Officers of the Police and Prisons Department and the last grade Government servants. The objects of this Association are set forth in Rule 4 of the Constitution, and it is seen that they are beneficent and ameliorative in character, designed along the lines of promoting the welfare of the members in multiple directions. The Association represented by ten of its members applied on 23-12-1957 to the Registrar of Trade Union, under section 5 of the Indian Trade Unions Act (Act XVI of 1926). In a brief order, the Registrar rejected this application, in which, after a reference of Secs. 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act, he held that such an Association of ministerial employees of the Administrative...
issardas and Vs. Hair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad458
Jagadisan. J.(1) These are two writ petitions in the first of which, W. P. No. 913 of 1961, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Court of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras from taking possession of the business of the petitioner running in the name and style of 'Oceanic Agencies' and in the second of which W. P. No. 914 of 1961, the petitioner, the same as in W. P. No. 913 of 1961, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records of the Court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in I. A. Nos. 604 and 606 of 1961 in O. S. No. 1603 of 1961 and to quash the orders therein dated 21-7-1961.(2) At the very outset we have to deal with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue prerogative writs in the nature of prohibition and certiorari, in respect of the jurisdiction of and...
The State of Madras Vs. B.V. Subramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad313; (1962)1MLJ372b
(1) The question involed n this second appeal is a simple but interesting one whether, when the officer acquiring property under the Land Acquisition Act (Collector) refers a dispute to the decision of the civil court under section 30 of the Act, firstly, he should he should as the party respondent in the records of the civil court, and secondly whether, in the in any event, costs could be awarded against him. Actually in the matter before me, there appears to have been an ample justuification for the officer to make the reference under section 30 though admittedly therewas only one claimant in the case (B. V. Subramania Aiyar). The officer seems to have made the reference because he thought that the title of the claimant was not clearly established by the documentary evidence before him. and that he could not decide, upon that evidence whether the claimant was the true and only person entitled to the compensation amount. Yhe justification Iam reffered to learned principal Subordinate...
R.M.P.R.M.P. Valliappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad372
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 228 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order of the Additional Joint Commercial tax Officer (Assessments).Madurai-South dated 28-3-1959 passed under the Madras General Sales-tax Act.(2) The petitioner is a dealer in textiles in Madurai. In respect of the assessment year 1-4-1957 to 31-3-1958 he submitted a return or his business turnover under the Madras General Sales-tax Act declaring a net, assessable turnover of Rs. 4,78,058--10nP. The assessing authority, the respondent herein, issued the notice dated 20th March 1959 to the petitioner pointing out inter alia, that he will have to pay an additional duty under S. 3(2) of the Act in respect of sale of cloth purchased by him from outside the State and in respect of the stock of goods held by him on 31-12-1957 and sold in the year of assessment. The respondent proposed to determine the net turnover of the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »