Chennai Court December 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.
S. Mariappa Nadar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ302
Srinivasan, J.1. Certain common questions arise in these petitions. The Assessments in question are under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1957-58. In order to understand the points in controversy, the facts relating to one petition will be set out. Though there are minor differences in the details relating to the other petitions, the questions for determination are not different.T.G. No. 108 of 1959.2. The assessee manufactures matches and sells the product of his factory both inside the Madras State and to dealers outside the State. He is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act. According to the petitioner, when he sells the matches, he invoices only the sale value of the matches, that is to say, he does not include in the invoice the excise duty which is payable on the goods. He prepares a separate debit note on the buyer for this excise duty and collected that amount from the buyer. In respect of the turnover, the petitioner returned a net turnover of only Rs. 4,4...
Velambal Ammal Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR558(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This revision petition arises out of proceeding of assessment under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Madras Act V of 1955). One Ayyasami Chettiar, the deceased husband of the petitioner, endowed an extent of a about 15 acres 60 cents under his last will and testament dated June 21, 1924, for the performance of certain religious and charitable trusts. Under the terms of the said will properties were dedicated for the following objects and purposes :1. The performance of the second kalasandhi kattalai in the shrine of Sri Saptharishiswami, Lalgudi. 2. The performance of the 8th day (horse vahanam) mandagapadi during the annual Brahmothsavam festival in the month of Panguni in the said Saptharishiswami Temple. 3. The daily puja and neivedhyam in the temple of Sri Vinayagar situated in the Big Chetty Street, Lalgudi. 4. The performance of water pandal charity during the summer months of Panguni, Chitrai and Vaikasi every year in Keezhavashi village in Lalgudi Ta...
In Re: Periaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ490; (1962)2MLJ180
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The first petitioner has been convicted under Sections 8 and 9 of the Madras Gaming Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and Rs. 15, respectively, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and one week; the other petitioners have been convicted under Section 9 of the same Act and fined Rs. 15 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. On appeal the convictions and sentences have been confirmed by the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) South Arcot.2. The only point urged in this Criminal Revision Case is that the petitioners should have been acquitted under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of the absence of Sri Devakribai, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed the charge-sheet in the case. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the raid has been examined as P.W. 5 in this case; and he has given evidence that he directed the Sub-Inspector of Police Sri Devakribai, to file the charge-sheet ...
State of Madras, Represented by Director of Agriculture Vs. K. Periasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad154; (1962)2MLJ170
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. The second appeal by the State of Madras represented by the Director of Agriculture, the plaintiff in both the courts below, is upon a short point. The following facts are sufficient for an adjudication of the issue now arising for determination.2. The plaintiff-appellant stated that the defendant was supplied with a 30 H. P. crude oil engine by the Director of Agriculture, pursuant to a treaty between the parties. The engine was delivered on 20-10-1946 and the defendant (respondent) paid a tentative cost of Rs. 3500. The understanding between the parties was that the final price was to be determined by Government, and that, thereafter, the defendant should pay the difference. Admittedly, the defendant gave a letter agreeing to pay the difference in price, after the final fixation of the price of the engine by Government. The Government (appellant) claimed that they had determined the figure at Rs. 6060, and that the defendant should pay the balance. This was the...
Veeramalai Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ramayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad437
(1) The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of the plaintiffs' two-third share in one half of the suit property and for recovery of past and future profits from the defendants.(2) One Veerappa Chettiar died leaving a son Ponnuswami and three daughters Ramayi (first defendant), Thangayi (second defendant) and Marayi. Marayi's husband is Veeramalai Chettiar, first plaintiff, and Muthuveera Chettiar and Kamakshi are her minor children. After Veerappa's death, Ponnuswami inherited the properties. Ponnuswami died in 1949 and his sisters Ramayi (first defendant), Thangayee (second defendant) and Marayi became entitled to the properties. Marayi died in the year 1953 First plaintiff Veeramalai Chettiar, purchased the one third share of Thangayee by a sale deed Ex. A-1 dated 16-10-1950. Thangayee is alive and so. far as this one-third share is concerned, it is admitted that the first plaintiff is entitled to it for the life ...
P.A.J. Seetharama Raju and ors. Vs. Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agency ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad1
Ramachandra Iyer, C. J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai J. in a suit (C. S. No. 41 of 1957) under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act directing registration of two documents together with a certificate of balance attached thereto, the documents being marked as Ex. P. 4 and P. 1. The appellants, Seetharama Raju, Rajeswari and Bapiraju constitute a firm of partners carrying on business under the name and style of Srinivasa Mining Co., at Chipurapalli in Srikakulam Dt. (Andhra Pradesh). They were the defendants to the suit. The firm owns certain manganese mines in Srikakulam Dt. The respondent (plaintiff in the suit) had agreed to finance the venture undertaken by the firm and the question in this appeal relates to the registrability of that financing agreement Ex. P. 4 dated 30-6-1958 entered into between the parties.2. Before referring to the provisions of that agreement, it is necessary to state certain other facts. The first appellant Seetharamaraju ...
P.A. Seetharama Raju and ors. Vs. Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agency De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ227
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, J., in a suit (C.S. No. 41 of 1957) under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act directing registration of two documents together with a certificate of balance attached thereto, the documents being marked as Exhibits P-4 and P-1. The appellants, Seetharama Raju, Rajeswari and Bapiraju constitute a firm of partners carrying on business under the name and style of Srinivasa Mining Company at Chipurapalli in Srikakulam District (Andhra Pradesh). They were the defendants to the suit. The firm owns certain manganese mines in Srikakulam District. The respondent (Plaintiff in the suit) had agreed to finance the venture, undertaken by the firm and the question in this appeal relates to the registrability of that financing agreement Exhibit P-4, dated 30th June, 1956, entered into between the parties.2. Before referring to the provisions of that agreement it is necessary to state certain other facts. The ...
Aruna Group of Estates Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Agr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ294
Jagadisan, J.1. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Batlagundu, refused registration of a firm under Section 27 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act for the Agricultural Income-tax year 1957-1958 in respect of a firm alleged to consist of 15 partners, of whom one was a minor entitled only to the benefits of partnership. This decision was affirmed both by the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madurai, and the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. In this Tax Revision Case the correctness of the said decision is challenged.2. The facts that led to the application for registration are quite simple and are not in controversy. Anina Group Estates, Bodinaickanur, is the name of a firm and the firm was originally constituted with five partners who had entered into a partnership agreement, dated 13th April, 1950. The firm owned plantations of cardamom and other agricultural and horticultural products. The names of the partners and their respective shares we...
State of Madras Represented by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ237
ORDER1. A common question arises in these two petitions. It is whether under Section 31 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, an assessee is enabled to file an appeal from the order of composition of agricultural income-tax made under Section 65 of the Act. We shall briefly set out the facts in each of these petitions.2. T.C. Mo. 54 of 1960.--The respondent in this case applied under Section 65 of the Act for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him. His application gave particulars of the extent of land held by him, the total of which came to 92.90 acres equivalent to 29.70 standard acres. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, after satisfying himself that the particulars given in the application were correct, granted permission to compound. The result was that the respondent was called upon to pay in lieu of the agricultural income-tax, a sum of Rs. 106.50 per year for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61.3. The respondent appealed to the Ass...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. Subbiah Gounder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR522(Mad)
A common question arises in these two petitions. It is whether, under section 31 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, an assessee is enabled to file an appeal from the order of composition of agricultural income-tax made under section 65 of Act. We shall briefly set out the fact in each of these petitions.T. C. No. 54 of 1960. - The respondent in this case applied under section 65 of the Act for permission to compound, the agricultural income-tax payable by him. His application gave particulars of the extent of land held by him, the total of which came to 92.90 acres equivalent to 29.70 standard acres. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, after satisfying himself that the particulars given in the application were correct, granted permission to compound. The result was that the respondent was called upon to pay, in lieu of the agricultural income-tax, a sum of Rs. 106.50 per year for the assessment year 1958-59, 1960-61.The respondent appealed to the Assistant Commissioner claimin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »