Chennai Court March 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.
The Mannargudi Municipalty by Commissioner Vs. the Mannargudi Bank, Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ16
Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a small cause suit filed by the Respondent, Mannargudi Bank, Limited, for refund of a sum of Rs. 125 collected by the petitioner, Mannargudi Municipality, as profession tax for the half year ending 31st March, 1957. The learned District Munsif decreed refund of a sum of Rs. 113, after deducting Rs. 12 which, according to him was the tax payable by the bank. According to the Municipality, in decreeing the suit the learned District Munsif acted without jurisdiction and has further misconstrued and misapplied the relevant rules pertaining to levy of profession tax under the District Municipalities Act.2. The Respondent carries on banking business among other places within the Mannargudi Municipality and is liable under Section 93 of the District Municipalities Act to pay profession tax in accordance with the rules laid down in Schedule IV of the Act. When the Municipality called upon the Respondent for a return of its income ...
Periera Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ122Mad
Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. Perlera, the managing director, Modern Embroidery (Private), Ltd., and proprietor, Colombo Saree Works, Oppanakar Street, Coimbatore, has filed these criminal revision oases against his conviction and sentence confirmed in C.A. Nos. 544 and 545 of 1959, by the District Magistrate, Coimbatore. He was charged by the Assistant inspector of Labour, Circle I, Coimbatore (P.W. 1), for having contravened Rules 16(1) and 16B of the rules framed under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, in that on 30 May 1959 when P.W. 1 visited the establishments he found columns (3) to (5) (for the months of February, March and April 1959) in form F left blank and the register of wages was not made available for inspection. The sub-magistrate convicted the petitioner of both the offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in each case, in default simple imprisonment for two weeks. In appeal, the District Magistrate confirmed the convictions and sentences and hence these ...
indira Bai and anr. Vs. Gift Tax Officer, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad96; [1962]44ITR66(Mad)
(1) In W. P. No. 957 of 1958, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of prohobition prohibiting the Gift Tax Officer form enforcing a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit the prescribed return under the Act. In W. P. No. 217 of 1960, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ for quashing an order of assessment made by the Gift Tax Officer. Since the same question of the proper construction of the provisions of the Act is raised in the two petitions, they are dealt with together. The facts relating to each case are however different and they will be set out briefly.(2) The petitioner in the first of these writs had made five gifts, four of which were of either Rs. 10,000, or below and one of Rs. 20,000. By a notice dated 30th October 1958, the Gift Tax Officer called upon the petitioner to submit a return for the assessment year 1958-59. In the form of return which was enclosed to the notice, the petitioner was required to aggregate t...
Janab Abubucker Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR37(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER OFFG. C.J. - The following questions have been referred to us for our decision :'1. Whether the determination of the profits on the sale of lands at Rs. 66,000 and its inclusion and assessment under the head business is lawful and correct 2. Whether on the material on record the Appellate Tribunal could reasonably come to a finding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 was an income from undisclosed source ?'These question arise in proceedings relating to the assessment of one Abu Bucker Sait for the year 1948-49, the year of account being the corresponding financial year. The assessee owns a coffee plantation at Yercaud and he also grows oranges and gall-nut on other lands. The income from the former source is received through the India Coffee Board; that from the latter directly. In one year, the income by the sale of oranges and gall-nuts is said to have approximated Rs. 3,000. The assessee says that he maintains no accounts. He did not file any return of income for the year 1...
Salem Gugai Sri Krishna Bank Ltd., Gugai Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR422(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred to us is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 16,737 or any part thereof is deductible from the profits of the year 1952, the previous year for the assessment year 1953-54, under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee carries on the business of banking. At some time after the closing hours of the bank on the 28th April, 1951, and its opening on the following Monday, the 30th of April, 1951, the premises of the bank had been broken into. The safe room had been entered. The safe had been opened and a large amount of cash amounting to the entire closing balance on 28th April, 1955, which was Rs. 26,959 and odd had been taken away. In addition, jewels to the value of about rupees two lakhs, which had been pledged with the bank which had also been kept in the safe, had been removed. In connection with this incident, one Thiagarajan, who was in the employ of the bank as cashier, was prosecuted. Almost the entirety of the jewels and cash of about ...
Raman and Raman Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR400(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, Offg. C.J. - The following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of their case, there was material on which the Tribunal could disallow the sums of Rs. 6,500 and Rs. 11,500 paid to the managing director and the directors respectively, us claims not allowable under section 1O(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act', and whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material on which the Tribunal could disallow the sums of Rs. 7,500 and Rs. 5,400 paid to the managing director and the director respectively as Claims not allowable under section 1O(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?'The two questions set out above respectively concern the propriety of the deductions claimed by the assessee in respect of salaries paid to the managing director, Narayana Iyer, and the technical qualified director, Kasiraman, during the two years of account relevant to the assessment years 1953-54 and 1952-53. The assessees...
Gopal Udayar Vs. Mangala Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ337
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The suit promissory note was assigned to him by the original payee. This promissory note had been executed on 3rd August, 1950 and there were two endorsements of payment dated 16th November, 1952 and 1st July, 1955. The question that was considered by the learned District Munsif was whether the suit was in time. This question had necessarily to be considered in the light of the provisions of Act I of 1955. The learned District Munsif thought that Article 74 of the Limitation Act could not cover the plaintiff's claim since the promissory note itself did not provide for payment of the amount in instalments. On this short ground the claim was dismissed.2. The question that I have now to consider is whether by reason of the special provisions in Act I of 1955 the plaintiff is entitled to sue in respect of the instalments which have fallen due and which have not been paid by the defendant-respondents. Under Act I of 1955 which came into forc...
Sri Amuruvi Perumal Devasthanam Vs. K.R. Sabapathi Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad132
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 49 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram. The plaintiff Sri Amuruvi Perumal Devasthanam at Teralandur, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,744-11-4, being arrears of lease payable by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, decreed the suit for Rs. 7,422. Now the appeal is filed for the disallowed portion of the claim by the appellant.2. The facts in this case are the following:The plaintiff-devasthanam possesses the properties described in schedules; A to A-2 to the plaint. At the time of the suit the plaintiff was represented by its trustee Sri Raghavan, who was validly appointed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department. The devasthanam as usual leased the suit lands in open auction held on 26th June, 1952, as per the Rules framed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for three faslis, 1362, 1363 and 1364 (1952, 1953 and 1954) subject ...
P.S. Muthukrishna Chettiar Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad347
(1) This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 310 of 1954, on the file Of the District Court, South Arcot confirming the decree in O. S. No. 83 of 1953 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.(2) Meenakshi Ammal, the plaintiff in the suit, O. S. No. 83 of 1953, sued her husband, the first defendant and his brother, he second defendant for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit properties and for past and future mesne profits. In an earlier suit O. S. No. 137 of 1950, on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, Meenakshi claimed separate maintenance from her husband, the first defendant alleging desertion on his part. That suit ended in a compromise between the two spouses and a compromise decree was passed on 21-12-1951. The amount of maintenance payable by the husband to the wife was fixed oral Rs. 150, per mensem and a charge on the properties in that suit was created in favour of the wife for the due payment of the ...
A. Abdul Rahim Vs. State of Madras by Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ272
Veeraswami, J.1. This Revision is directed against a conviction under Section 16(1) read with Section 6(2)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, and imposition of a fine of Rs. 200 with a provision for simple imprisonment for three weeks in case of default. The petitioner who was the landlord, by a lease deed, dated 1st January, 1958, let out to one Dr. M.P. Ganesh Rao the front side of premises No. 129-A in Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. Clauses (4) and (5) of the lease deed provided for the payment by the tenant to the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 500 as advance, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner, and for return of the advance without interest on the tenant vacating the premises in his occupation. The question is whether this provision for payment of the amount and refund of the same on the contingency contemplated is within the mischief of Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate thought t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »