Chennai Court February 1961 Judgments
Indian Dental Works and anr. Vs. K. Dhanakoti Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad127
(1) The first plaintiff in this suit is the widow of one Duraiswami Mudaliar and the second plaintiff in her son. Duraiswami Mudalier is said to have started a business about the year 1934 of manufacturing tooth powder under the name Pyorrhea Tooth Powder. The tooth powder was packed in paper envelopes and tin containers with a trade mark the principal features of which were the picture of a human face with open mouth showing diseased gums, superimposed with the numeral 1431. In the course of a few years the tooth powder became very popular, being sold all over South India and even in far off place like Malaya. In 1935 a declaration of ownership of the plaintiff's trade mark was filed before the Presidency Magistrate's court Calcutta. This declaration of ownership was registered under the numeral 1431 of 1935. Thereafter, the founder Duraiswami Mudaliar is said to have added the words "registered No. 1431" as part of his trade mark. In 1937 the founder altered the trade mark by adoptin...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuveeran Chetty Vs. Govindan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Mad518
Srinivasan, J. 1. The question raised in this reference to the Full Bench is whether a member of a Joint family to whom a promissory note is allotted at an oral partition among the members of that family can maintain an action on the promissory note as distinct from the debt, in the absence of an endorsement of transfer made on the promissory note or of a deed of assignment executed in respect of that note.2. This question arose in the revision filed by the plaintiff who was non-suited by the learned District Munsif of Pudukottai who upheld the contention of the defendant in the suit that the plaintiff obtained no rights in the promissory note without an assignment in his favour. The facts are that the defendant executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 70/- in favour of the plaintiffs grandfather in 1937. The Payee-grandfatherdied, and at a partition which took place between the sons of the payee, that is, the plaintiffs father, and his brother the promissory note Was allotted to th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaraswamy, Pioneer Works Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ155
Srinivasan, J.1. The Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner to income-tax on Rs. 2,46,510 in the assessment year 1957-58 and on Rs. 3,95,185 in the assessment year 1958-59. The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari to set aside the orders of these assessments.2. The relevant facts were as follows: The petitioner was the Managing Director of the Palkulam Estates (Private), Ltd. This company was in receipt of income, which was claimed to be wholly agricultural. In the year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58 the petitioner borrowed sums from Palkulam Estates (Private), Ltd. He also borrowed monies from two other firms, Pioneer Works (Private), Ltd. of which also he was a Managing Director, and from Pioneer Motor (Private), Ltd., of which he was only a shareholder. All these were companies in which the public had no substantial interest, and they thus came within the scope of Section 23-A of the Income-tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaraswami Vs. Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR423(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner to income-tax on Rs. 2,46,510 in the assessment year 1957-58 and on Rs. 3,95,185 in the assessment year 1958-59. The petitioner applied under article 226 of the Constitutioin for the issue of writs of certiorari to set aside the orders of these assessments.The relevant facts were as follows :The petitioner was the managing director of Palkulam Estates (Private) Ltd. This company was in receipt of income, which was claimed to be wholly agricultural. In the year of account corresponding to the assessment year 1957-58 the petitioner borrowed sums from Palkulam Estates (Private) Ltd. He also borrowed monies from two other firms, Pioneer Works (Private) Ltd., of which also he was a managing director, and from Pioneer Motor (Private) Ltd., of which he was only a shareholder. All these wre companies in which the public had no substantial interest, and they came within the scope of section 23A of the Income-tax Act. The amounts on ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalasani Ammal Vs. Kuppuswami Mudaly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ330
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, as amended in this State, the Court may call upon an applicant either to furnish security, to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or that realised by the sale, whichever is less, or to deposit such amount in Court. In the present case, the applicant made an application to dispense with security, or in any event, to accept immovable property offered by him as security. The only order passed on that application was as follows:Heard in open Court. Cash security to be furnished.It is quite clear that in the First Proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, the Court has got a discretion at two stages:(1) at the stage of admitting the application when he may or may not call upon the applicant to furnish security, or to deposit any amount; and(2) When, the Court decides that security or deposit is necessary, in which case the Court should decide whether to direct a deposit or permit t...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Chamber of Commerce Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR503(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee, the Andhra Chamber of Commerce, an incorporated company, obtained registration under the provisions of section 26 of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913). Both section 26 of that Act and article 4 of the memorandum of association required the assessee-association to expend its income solely on the promotion of its objects and prohibited it from distributing any portion of its income amongst its members by way of dividend or otherwise. Clause 7 of the memorandum provided that, even if the assessee-association was dissolved or wound up, its assets should not be distributed amongst the members of the Chamber, but should be utilised by transfer to other institutions with similar objects. The principal sources of income of the assessee-association were the subscriptions and donations it received from its members and the rental it received from the tenants who occupied the building it owned at Madras. The principal objects of the association as set out in su...
Tag this Judgment!L.R. Govindasami Naidu, by Power-of-attorney Agent K.S. Muthu Naidu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ368
Veeraswami, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff raises the question of jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide whether the land of which possession is sought to be recovered in the suit, is ryoti in character. It is not in dispute that the village of Kaduveli in which the suit land is situate, is a post-1936 estate and that it has been notified in 1950 under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXX of 1947). The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the land on 25th September, 1945, and that it had since been in his pannai cultivation along with his other lands. He set up an agreement, dated 17th July, 1955, under which he sold to the defendant for a certain sum the plantain crops he had raised, and averred that the defendant, contrary to the terms of the agreement, defaulted to surrender possession of the land after removing the standing crops and continued to be in unlawful possession setting up title in himself. On the other ha...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Goel, Proprietor Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1961
Reported in: [1961]12STC527(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. By Section 2 of the Madras Act XV of 1949, Section 3(1), the charging section of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, was amended by the addition of a proviso in these terms :-Provided that if and to the extent to which such turnover relates to articles of food and drink sold in a hotel, boarding house or restaurant, the tax shall be calculated at the rate of 41/2 pies for every rupee if the turnover relating to these articles is not less than Rs. 25,000.2. The constitutionality of this proviso was challanged in A. R. Kirshna Iyer v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 346. It was contended therein that the impugned proviso offended against Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court upheld the contention holding :In our opinion, the distinction between two classes of dealers in articles of food and drink with an annual turnover of Rs. 25,000 and more, i.e., (i) dealers in such articles of food and drink sold in hotels, boarding houses and restaurants; (ii) dealers in s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanaswami and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ128
Rajagopalan, J.1. Mr. Narayanaswami and Mr. Subramaniam were partners in Swastik & Company till May, 1946. Thereafter they traded in partnership under the name of Chitra & Company. Chitra & Company, a firm of stock-brokers, had its head office at Madras and a branch at Trivandrum. Out of the profits earned and accumulated at Trivandrum in Travancore, which was outside British India which then constituted the taxable territories, and which profits were therefore not assessed, each of the partners purchased Mysore securities which were held at Trivandrum. They desired to change the investment to Travancore Securities. Each of them sold the Mysore securities to the firm Chitra & Company on 6th August, 1947, under what was styled a broker's contract. It was common ground that facilities for purchases and sale of securities were better at Madras, where the firm had its head office. On 7th August, 1947, the firm entered into a contract at Madras to sell those Mysore securities to a broker in...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayanaswami and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR335(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The reference under section 66(2) of the Act, that was directed in C. M. P. No. 7015 of 1956, was itself necessitated during the course of the arguments into R. C. No. 26 of 1953, when an alternative contention of the assessee had to be dealt with to dispose of the controversy between the parties which constituted the subject matter of R. C. No. 26 of 1953. To comply with the directions given in C. M. P. No. 7015 of 1956 a statement of the case has been submitted which has been separately numbered as R. C. No. 73 of 1957 but the questions that arise both in R. C. Nos. 26 of 1953 and 73 of 1957 relate to the same set of assessment proceedings and, as we said, they are really alternative positions to be considered before the questions at issue between the assessee and the department are ultimately disposed of.It is rather unfortunate that the specific findings required have not been recorded in the statement of the case submitted in R. C. No. 73 of 1957. The department f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »