Chennai Court March 1961 Judgments
K. S. Janakiram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR430(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee was a partnership firm doing business as freight brokers for various shipping lines including Ashoka Lines Ltd. Later, it became the proprietory concern of the assessee. It would appear that a firm known as Inden Biselers was in need of a vessel for the carriage of tiles from the ports on the west coast to ports in Ceylon. A charter-party was entered into by this firm with Ashoka Lines Ltd., the latter agreeing to provide a vessel called Menaka, later re-named Manek Prasad. The Ashoka Lines Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the owners) had to purchase the vessel and make it available to the charterers, Inden Biselers. They were however in somewhat straitened circumstances and had need of funds to enable the purchase. The charterers agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 25,000 which was to be adjusted against the freight payable. The charterers were, however, unwilling to rely solely on the owners with regard to the repayment of this sum. They accordingly required t...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. Raja Kuppa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad81
(1) Roya Kuppa Chetti, the first defendant to the suit out of which this second appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetti (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a Joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetti, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetti however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22-12-1953, to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetti sold on 1-2-1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on behalf of the joint family consisting of himself and ...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. Roya Kuppa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ174
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. Roya Kuppa Chetty, the first defendant to the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetty (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetty, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the third defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject-matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetty however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22nd December, 1953,to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetty sold on 1st February, 1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on behalf of the j...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaswamy (T.P.) Vs. S.i. Railway Employees' Co-operative Credit Soc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ754Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. T.P. Thangaswami, the petitioner, was employed as an attender under the South Indian Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd., Tiruchirappalli. At the relevant period he had a service of more than sixteen years. It appears that one Rajamanickam who resides in the same street as the petitioner, applied to the abovementioned society for a loan. For the purpose of the loan, apparently one P. Veeran had stood surety. On 15 June 1957, a director of the society came to know that Veeran denied that he stood as surety for Rajamanickam. Another director of the society, one Ganapathi, recorded a statement from Rajamanickam on 22 June 1957, stating that it was Thangaswami, the petitioner, who got an unknown person to stand as surety for the loan after obtaining some monetary benefit. This statement of Rajamanickam was shown to the petitioner; and a memo, was issued to him on 27 June 1957, in the following terms:T.P. Thangaswami is chargesheeted for serious misco...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.K. Mohamed Dastagir Sahib Vs. the Iii Additional Income-tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ201
Srinivasan, J.1. In this petition, a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is prayed for. The petitioner asks that the notice of demand issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar for the collection of income-tax arrears in demand notice I.T. No. 499 of 1955, dated 17th July, 1955, may be called for and quashed.2. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1949-50 and the total amount of tax payable by the petitioner was found to be Rs. 7,515-13-0. Subsequently, after certain adjustments, the petitioner was informed that the arrears that remained to be paid was a sum of Rs. 7,191-2-0. Thereafter a certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act stating that a sum of Rs. 6,207-8-0 was the amount due as income-tax arrears. In pursuance of that certificate, a notice of demand was issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar for collection of income-tax arrears purporting to be under Act II of 1864 wherein also this last mentioned sum was shown as...
Tag this Judgment!M. S. M. M. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR775(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee purchased an estate in 1938 and planted it with rubber in 1941. The rubber plants reached maturity only in January, 1947, and started yielding thereafter. During the year ended April 13, 1947, which was the previous year for the assessment year 1947-48, an expenditure of 14,237 dollars was incurred on the maintenance of the immature plantation, the expenditure having been actually incurred between April 13, 1946, and November 30, 1946. The Income-tax Officer disallowed these expenses; the only reason that is found in the order of assessment is that 'the estate had to begun to yield. The expenditure will, therefore, be treated as of a capital nature.' The disallowance of this expenditure was canvassed in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who stated :'This estate began to yield rubber from 1947. First sales of rubber took place in January, 1947. I, therefore, hold that the expense incurred up to the end of December, 1946, should be considere...
Tag this Judgment!P. S. K. Mohamed Dastagir Sahib Vs. Third Additional Income-tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR460(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In this petition, a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ is prayed for. The petitioners asks that the notice of demand issued by the Special Deputy Tasildar for the collection of income-tax arrears in demand notice I. T. No. 499 of 1955 dated July 17, 1955, may be called for and quashed.The assessment relates to the assessment year 1949-50 and the total amount of tax payable by the petitioner was found to be Rs. 7,515-13-0. Subsequently, after certain adjustments, the petitioner was informed that the arrears that remained to be paid was a sum of Rs. 7,191-2-0. Thereafter, a certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 46 (2) of the Income-tax Act stating that a sum of Rs. 6,207-8-0 was the amount due as income-tax arrears. In pursuance of that certificate, a notice of demand was issued by the Special Deputy Tasildar for collection of income-tax arrears purporting to be under Act 11 of 1864 wherein also this last mentioned sum was shown as the ...
Tag this Judgment!A. S. Khader Ismail Vs. Income-tax Officer, Salem. P. Sahadeva Mudalia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR16(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER J. - These petitions are filed for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the Income-tax Officer, Salem, from continuing the proceedings initiated under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In W. P. No. 225 of 1958 the petitioner, Khader Ismail, was assessed to income-tax for the year 1945-46 (the relevant year of account being April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945), under section 23 of the Indian Income-tax act on January 31, 1946, by the Income-tax Officer, Salem. That assessment was re-opened by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 of the Act on the ground that certain cash credits amounting to Rs. 56,234 in the assessees books were not genuine ones but on the contrary represented income from undisclosed sources. The assessment that followed was the subject-matter of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That authority, while sustaining the view of the Income-tax Officer that the alleged borrowings represented by the cash credits were inc...
Tag this Judgment!Zahoorunnissa Begum Sahiba Vs. T. Mohammed Ali Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ331
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order declining to grant refund of excess Court-fee paid on the plaint in O.S. No. 352 of 1956, District Munsif's Court, Tiruvellore. The claim for refund arises in the following circumstances. There was a sale of the petitioner's properties in execution of a small cause decree. The petitioner thereupon filed O.S. No. 352 of 1956 for setting aside the sale. The suit was contested by the decree-holder as well as the auction-purchaser who inter alia took the objection that the suit was not the proper remedy as Section 47, Civil Procedure Code would apply to the case. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application to convert the suit into an application under Section 47. The trial Court declined to grant the conversion sought. An appeal was filed against the order of the trial Court to the District Judge of Chingleput who allowed the application and remanded the case for converting the suit into an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Arakchand Kankaria Vs. Amarchand Kankaria and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad252; (1962)1MLJ3
Acts/Rules/Orders: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 33, Rule 5; Transfer of Property Act - Section 69Order(1) This revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras declining leave to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judge found that prayers (d) and (e) in paragraph 15 of the proposed plaint were barred by limitation and considered that the proper order to be passed in the circumstances was 'to' reject the original petition under Order 33, R. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a fresh petition, if he thought it necessary, in respect of his claim for partition of the suit properties and a declaration that the mortgage in favour of the third respondent did not convey a valid power of sale. The suit which the petitioner sought to file in forma pauperis was for partition of the properties in B and C schedule between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the third ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »