Chennai Court April 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 Village Panachayat by Its Executive Officer Vs. Sri La Sri Subrama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ36
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. Vaitheeswarankoil, which owes its importance to the two famous temples of Sri Vaidyanathaswami and Sri Muthukumaraswami situate within its limits, is a village in ii}e Tanjore district, whose civic affairs are vested in a Panchayat constituted under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. Two of the annual festivals in the temple, the 'Panguni Utharam' and 'Mandalabhisheka Krithigai', which last for fourteen and three days respectively, attract large numbers of pilgrims. Sanitary and other arrangements for the convenience of the pilgrims have to be, and are, made by the Panchayat during the time of the festival. Claiming that, under the provisions of Section 78 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, the temple would be bound to contribute one half of the expenses incurred in respect of the arrangements aforesaid and after giving credit to what was paid by the temple in that behalf, the Panchayat instituted two Small Cause Suits in The District Munsif's Court, Sir...
P.S. Pattabhiraman and ors. Vs. Ganapathy Kannappa Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ246
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the District Munsif, Sholinghur, in I.A. No. 327 of 1959 in O.S. No. 32 of 1959, declining to issue a Third Party notice under the provisions of Order 8-A, Civil Procedure Code.2. Subramania Pillai, the deceased father of the petitioners, executed, on nth February, 1950, in favour of one Chinna Munuswami Mudali, a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 3,000. The respondent claiming that he obtained an assignment of the promissory note and thereby became a holder in due course, filed a suit against the petitioners, the sons of the executant, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,750. Chinna Munuswami Mudali was not made a party to the suit.3. The petitioners raised various contentions to the claim. They alleged that a number of payments had been made to the original payee, Chinna Munuswami Mudali, and on his behalf to his two undivided sons, Kalathiswaran and Shanmugam in respect of which no credit had been g...
C. Rajammal Vs. V.P. Chinnakannu Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ39
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The petitioner owns an extent of 4/26 acres of wet land in Thodaneri village in Madurai district. The lands were held on lease by the respondent at a rent of 40 bags of paddy, each bag measuring 48 Madras measures, and some bundles of hay per year. The respondent is stated to be in possession of 20 acres of land, either as owner or as tenant, in addition to the 4.26 acres belonging to the petitioner. There can be no doubt that, comparatively speaking, the tenant is in more affluent circumstances than the landlord. The petitioner filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai, under Section 4A(2) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Act XXV of 1955) for permission to resume for personal cultivation half the property leased to the respondent. The latter countered the application by offering to pay one-half of the contractual rent (as the rent stood on 27th September, 1955) for the property sought to be resumed. This was under Sect...
S. Narayanan Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ421
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Collector of Customs, Madras, and quash the order, dated 19th June, 1958, in C. 3/751 of 1958-Ap., which confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, confiscating certain important goods. One Senjoo Chetty had placed an order through the petitioner, with M/s. Willy G. Czech, Exporters, Bremen, West Germany, for a quantity of Bright Iron Boot Studs. Senjoo Chetty had a licence under the Import Control Order authorising him to import those goods. The licence was, dated 14th March, 1957 and it was current for a period of six months thereafter. Within the period of the licence, the exporter despatched 50 cases of Boot Protector Studs. The next consignment of about 49 cases was despatched by steamer. But unfortunately, it was done outside the period of Senjoo Chetty's licence. The goods arrived in Madras Harbour. Bu...
Southern Agencies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR602(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The first of the questions that was referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, ran :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sums of Rs. 20,555, Rs. 32,554 Rs. 33,180 laid out by the assessee during the previous years for the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51 respectively, in prospecting for raw materials for floating new companies can constitute admissible deductions either under section 10(2) (xv) or under section 10(2) (xi) of the Act ?'The assessee company had as one of its objects promotion of new companies and obtaining the managing agency of the companies so promoted. The claim of the assessee was that it incurred preliminary expenditure to promote a cement company to be known as Arcot Cement Co., and in the three years of account in question expended large sums to explore possibilities for successfully launching that contemplated cement company. Eventually the cement company was never form...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. O. Vr. Sv. Vr. Arunachalam Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1961
Reported in: [1963]49ITR574(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that is referred to this court is :'Whether Rs. 72,742 is the doubly taxed income for purposes of the application of section 49D as held by the Tribunal and not Rs. 63,141 as contended by the Commissioner ?'It is not disputed that the assessable income of the assessee in Malaya was the sum of Rs. 93,312 and the chargeable income thereof was Rs. 88,635. The income as computed for purposes of assessment in India for the assessment year 1952-53 was Rs. 88,966. On this amount after allowing for the abatement for non-remittance and deducting losses in the business at the headquarters in India and adding the property income and income from other sources in India, the total taxable income was computed to be Rs. 72,742. When the question of double income-tax relief was raised, the Income-tax Officer granted relief only to the extent of Rs. 63,141. This figure was arrived at taking into consideration the Malayan income subject to tax in India as Rs. 84,466 less the ...
P.P.Ar.Rm. Periakaruppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.A.P.Ct.C.T. Chidambar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad391
Ramacitandra Iyer, J.(1) These appeals relate to the execution of a money decree passed in O. S. No. 208 of 1932 on the file of the Sub-Court. Devakottai C. M. A. Nos. 207 and 208 of 1957 are filed by the first and the sixth defendants, (the latter or whom died during the pendency of the appeals), who were the judgment-debtors under the decree, against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai transmitting the decree for execution by the Sub Court at Kumbakonam and allowing concurrent execution to proceed, as the decree-holder had already filed E. P. No. 124 of 1951 in the Sub Court, Devakottai, which is seated to be pending. C. M. A. No. 55 of 1958 is filed by the decree-holder against the order of the transferee court, namely, Sub-Court of Kumbakonam in E. P. No. 68 of 1957, holding that that execution petition is barred under the provisions of S. 48 C.P.C.One of the complaints of the judgment-debtors in the former two appeals is that the order for transmission of the decree ...
Michael Villavarayar and anr. Vs. the Workmen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad205; [1962(4)FLR48]; (1961)IILLJ761Mad
ORDER(1) These two petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed against the presiding officer of the Labour court Madurai. As the points in dispute are identical they were heard together with the consent of parties.(2) The petitioner, Michael Villavarayar, in W.P. No 176 of 1960, and the petitioner, correra and Bors, in W.P. No. 209 of 1960 are boat owners in Tuticorin, On certain charges after issuing the necessary 'show cause notice' they dismissed form employment Michael Fernando, & Santhacrus Fernando, tindals in their service, engaged for the running of piratical boats. In Tuticoring there is a labour Union called the Boatmens's Union Tuticorin. They took up the cause of the dismissed tindals, Thereafter, the Government of Madras in two G., Os. Referred the issue of the valid termination of the services of these tindals as an industrial dispute to the labor court at Madurai for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act ...
R. Shanmugha Rajeswara Sethupathi Vs. the First Additional Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ51
Srinivasan, J.1. In W.P. Nos. 343, 391 to 396 and 418 of 1960, the ex-Zamindar of Ramnad is the petitioner. He prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and to quash the orders of assessment made by that officer for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1955-56, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in respect of certain receipts of the petitioner by way of interim payments provided for in the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act XXVI of 1948). W.P. No. 849 of 1960 is directed against the notice of demand issued under Section 29 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay advance tax under Section 18A(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1960-61.2. In the remaining writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 419 to 424, 1236 and 1237 of 1960, the ex-Zamindar of Sivaganga is the petitioner. He prays for writs of prohibition as the assessments in those cases have not yet proceeded beyond the stage of the issu...
Michael Villavarayar and Anr. Vs. the Workmen, represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ313
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed against the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Madurai. As the points in dispute are identical they were heard together with the consent of parties.2. The petitioners, Michael Villavarayar, in W.P. No. 176 of 1960, and the petitioner Correra & Brother in W.P. No. 209 of 1960 are boat-owners in Tuticorin. On certain charges after issuing the necessary 'show cause notice' they dismissed from employment Micheal Fernando, and Santhacrus Fernando, tindals in their service, engaged for the running of particular boats. In Tuticorin there is a Labour Union called the Boatmen's Union, Tuticorin. They took up the cause of the dismissed tindals. Thereafter, the Government of Madras, in two G.O.'s referred the issue of the valid termination of the services of these tindals as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court at Madurai for adjudication under the Industr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »