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.
Sri Amuruvi Perumal Devasthanam, Mayuram Taluk, Represented by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ452
Venkatadri, J.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 ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A.M. M. Mohammad Ibrahim Sahib.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR166(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER OFFG. C.J. - The Tribunal has submitted a revised statement of the case recording its finding that the assessee had a controlling interest in the non-resident company to which he transferred the entire assets and goodwill of his proprietory concern. It has also found that the shares standing in the names of his sons in the company were genuinely allotted to them, that subsequent to the formation of the company, the sons have been enjoying the dividends from the company with respect of the income received by the sons. It has further held that even if the assessees transfer of his assets to the non-resident company is held to come within the purview of section 44D (1) and clauses (5) and (6) thereof, such a transfer should be held to be saved from the operation of the provisions of the section by sub-clause (3) as it was a bona fide commercial transaction falling within clauses (a) and (b) thereto.We shall consider whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that th...
M. Subbaraya Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR801(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee, Sri M. Subbaraya Iyer, has been a practitioner in matters connected with income-tax. He commenced practice in 1910 and was an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1918. By 1952, he had established a voluminous practice. On March 30, 1952, he entered into a partnership with four juniors of his, one of whom is his son. It was agreed that the five persons should carry on in partnership the business or profession of lawyers and advocates as from the March 30th, 1952, the profession heretofore carried on by the first partner, Sri Subbaraya Iyer, with the help of partners 2 to 5. On and after the formation of the above firm, all the; pending professional engagements of Subbaraya Iyer were handed over to the firm. It is common ground that there were no such professional engagements of the other partners which were so transferred to them. It is also common ground that on and after the formation of this partnership, all the fees recoverable in connection wit...
Union of India Vs. B.L.N. Sitaramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad349
(1) The plaintiffs Bled this suit against the Union of India, represented by General Managers of B. B. and C. I., G. I. P. and Southern railways for recovery of Rs. 1453-13-6 as compensation for the damage done to six bales of cotton cloth consigned by the Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., to the plaintiffs. The Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., consigned six bales of cotton cloth on 25-8-50 to the plaintiffs. When the bales reached. Madras they were found wet and thereupon deliver was taken on 21-9-1950 In the presence of fairway Inspector who made an endorsement to the effect that all the six bales were found damaged by water on all sides Water had penetrated far into the bales and wettage could be felt on the gunny covering. Packing was gunny covering with brown paper packing inside. The plaintiffs took delivery on 21-9-1950 in the expectation that the compensation of Rs. 1453-13-6 which was fixed as damages to the goods would be paid by The railway authorit...
Kali thevan Vs. K.K. Giriraja Kalingarayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ819
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 435 and 439 Crl.P.C., to revise the order of the learned Sub-Collector and Executive First Class Magistrate, Pollachi in M.C. No. 9 of 1959, an application under Section 145 Cri.P.C. A dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace was reported to have arisen between the A party comprising of two persons Giriraja Kalingarayar and Kadirvel Kalingarayar on the one hand, and the B party, Kali Thevan, on the other, in regard to the possession of lands which initially comprised of 36 acres in S. No. 166/1 of Thimmangutu Village, and 8 acres in S. No. 8/1 of Kumarapalayam village, in Pollachi taluk. Subsequent to the preliminary order, it became apparent that the dispute covered also 9 acres in S. No. 5/1 of Kumarapalayam village.The preliminary order under Section 145(1) Cri.P.C. was passed on 27.9.1959. Both parties filed written statements in respect of their claims. As required by the amendment to Section 145(1) Cri.P.C. by Act 2...
Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1961
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ604Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ against the respondent 1. The circumstances which grave rise to the petition are the following.2. The petitioner is the Indian Bank, Ltd., Madras. The respondent 1 is the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The respondent 2 is the president, Indian Bank Employees' Union, and the respondent 3 is the secretary-general, Federation of the Indian Bank Employees' Union. By an order of the Government of India, dated 18 February 1960, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, a dispute was referred to the respondent 1-tribunal for adjudication. The matter in dispute was the 'quantum of bonus payable to the workmen of the petitioner-bank for the year 1957.' Subsequently, the Government of India constituted a national tribunal, and on 22 September 1960 referred to it, for adjudication the following:Bonus--Principles and conditions under whi...
Perumal Chettiar Vs. S.A. Peer Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ212
Jagadisan, J.1. The question of law that arises in this Second Appeal is whether it is lawful for a Sub-Inspector of Police to seize and detain a motor vehicle in pursuance of the direction from the Regional Transport Officer for non-payment of tax levied under Madras Act (XVI of 1952), and if such act is not lawful whether he can invoke the benefit of Section 17 (2) of the said Act in an action against him for damages instituted by the owner of the vehicle.2. S.A. Peer Mohamed was the owner of a motor lorry, MDU 2382 with a public carrier permit under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In exercise of the powers under Madras Act (XVI of 1952), the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai, assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 30 for the month of October, 1954, in respect of his lorry. The notice, Exhibit B-4, dated 2nd June, 1955, which was despatched on 10th June, 1955, demanding that the tax levied should be paid within 15 days after the receipt of the said notice, was actually received...
O. A. O. K. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR407(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER OFFG. C.J. - The estate of late O. A. O. K. RM. Arunachalam Chettiar (who died on November 20, 1952) in the hands of his legal representative was assessed to tax for the period from April 1, 1952, to November 20, 1952, by the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, on March 30, 1954. Notice of demand of tax due was served on the assessee on April 22, 1954. The assessee filed an appeal against the order of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on May 20, 1954. Unfortunately, the appeal petition was not accompanied by the notice of demand, though it was otherwise in order. On the same day, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner returned the petition to the assessee for supplying the defect, viz., filing of the notice of demand. He also stated :'Petitioner may, if so advised, resubmit the petition after rectifying the defects.'The assessee re-presented the appeal with the demand notice on May 24, 1954. If that date is taken as the date of presentation of the appeal,...
Mr. L. Murugappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR797(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - At a partition of a Nattukottai Chettiar undivided family carrying of money-lending business at Kuala Lumpur in 1947, the sub-family, which is the assessee, was allotted for its share of the family properties 34 items of real property. Certain items of money-lending transactions and some outstandings were also allotted to the assessee. It is not in dispute that the items of real property so allotted had been acquired by the larger family in the course of its money-lending transactions and in the hands of that family had formed part of the stock-in-trade of the money-lending business.During the account years relevant to the assessment years 1948-49, 1950-51 and 1952-53, the assessee sub-family sold some of the 34 items referred to above and some other properties which it had acquired in the course of its own money-lending transactions. Treating all these items of properties on the same footing, viz., as stock-in-trade of the assessees money-lending business, the Income-t...
Pandyan Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1961
Reported in: [1963]50ITR617(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The Pandyan Insurance Company Ltd. is the assessee which carries on the business of general insurance. By about the end of 1952, it had erected a substantial building at a cost of over rupees twelve lakhs. For the account year 1952, being the calendar year, the company wrote off as depreciation a small of Rs. 4,412. The depreciation claimed was only for one month in that year which relevant for the assessment year 1953-54. This appears to have been allowed by the department. For the succeeding year 1954-55, the account year being the calendar year 1953, the assessee purported to write off a sum if Rs. 1,21,245 as depreciation in respect of the buildings, the air conditioning plant, lifts, transformers and internal telephones. The Income-tax Officer disallowed four-fifths of the depreciation claimed on the ground that only a fifth part of the building was utilised for the business of the assessee. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed with the view ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »