Chennai Court August 1961 Judgments
Vishweshwaradass Gokuldass Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC113(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioners, Vishweshwardass Gokuldass are dealers in metals and mineral ores at Madras. They returned the gross turnover of the business for the year 1955-56 in the sum of Rs. 4,12,106-13-8. They claimed the sum of Rs. 44,855-9-9, the labour charges paid by them for converting aluminium scraps into circles, as expenses deductible from the gross turnover. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, treated the supply of aluminium circles wrought out of the aluminium scraps as sales and estimated the turnover value of such sales at Rs. 1,35,355-13-0. As against this sales turnover he allowed the labour charges of Rs. 44,855-9-9 and arrived at the net turnover. The assessees preferred an appeal before the Special Commercial Tax Officer, Madras City, and one of the objections raised by them before the appellate authority was that the supply of aluminium circles as against the aluminium scrap received from the constituents, who were supplied with the circle...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Srinath Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad379; (1962)IILLJ124Mad
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras dated 30-12-1958 informing the petitioner that as his services were no longer required by the Railway Administration they were, in accordance with Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, terminated with effect from the forenoon of 30-12-1958. By the same order, the General Manager further In. formed the petitioner that he would be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice of termination of his services. The petitioner was served with the order the same day. This petition was presented on 4-3-1959.(2) The petitioner entered service in June 1949 as a ticket collector in the then South Indian Railway. He was so appointed by the General Manager, South Indian Railway. After the reorganisation of various zones of the rail ways, the petitioned became an employee of the Indian Railways working in the Southern Railway. In 1950 he was promoted as a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing and Embroidery Works Vs. the State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC34(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a business at Madurai run in the name and style of Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing and Embroidery Works. He is a 'dealer' in textiles, within the charging provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. He is dealing in ready-made garments, silk choli bits and saris. In the year 1955-56 he carried on business between 1st April, 1955, and 16th May, 1955, and again from 12th July, 1955, to 31st March, 1956. For that year he returned his turnover of sales as Rs. 95,600-8-3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai Town III, scrutinised the account books of the petitioner and found that the not turnover of the petitioner was as follows: (1) Ready-made garments-Rs. 19,165-4-3 ; (2) First sales of silk choli bits-Rs. 74,471-0-9 ; (3) First sales of saris- Rs. 2,013-15-6 ; total Rs. 95,650-4-6. In respect of the sales turnover of the ready-made garments the tax was levied at the rate of 3 pies per rupee, but in respect of the sales t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Commissioner of Agricultural In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ390
Srinivasan, J.1. These are Revisions by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. The assessee, the Davershola Tea Co., Ltd., leased out a plantation to the Madras Tea Estates, Ltd. There were two separate leases, one covering the actual plantation and the other, the buildings, machinery, furniture, etc. For the two assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, the rental by way of lease of the plantation itself was Rs. 24,000. In respect of the buildings, machinery, furniture, etc., the rental stipulated in the lease was Rs. 89,999 for the first year Rs. 95,000 for the second year. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer estimated the rental value of the buildings alone at Rs. 59,749 and Rs. 65,471 for the two years respectively. After making certain allowances, the net agricultural income in relation to the buildings alone was taken as Rs. 16,033 for the first year and Rs. 19,722 for the second year. Sixty per cent, of these amounts was brought to tax. These assessments were taken up in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing and Embroidery Works by Proprietor R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ1
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a business at Madura to run in the name and style of Sri Kittappa Dress Manufacturing and Embroidery Works. He is a ' dealer' in textiles, within the charging provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. He is dealing in ready-made garments, silk choli-bits and sarees. In the year 1955-56 he carried on business between 1st April, 1955 and 16th May, 1955 and again from 12th July, 1955 to 31st March, 1956. For that year he returned his turnover of sales as Rs. 95,600-8-3. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai Town III, scrutinised the account books of the petitioner and found that the net turn-over of the petitioner was as follows : (1). Ready-made garments--Rs. 19,165-4-3; (2) First sales of silk choli-bits--Rs. 74,471-0,9; (3) First sales of sarees--Rs. 2,013-15-6; Total Rs. 95,650-4-6. In respect of the sales turn-over of the ready-made garments (the tax was levied at the rate of 3 pies per rupee, but in respect of the s...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Davershola Tea Company (Private) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1961
Reported in: [1963]47ITR190(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - These are revisions by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax. The assessee, the Davershola Tea Co. Ltd., leased out a plantation to the Madras Tea Estates Ltd. There were two separate leases, one covering the actual plantation and the other, the buildings, machinery, furniture, etc. For the two assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, the rental by way of lease of the plantation itself was Rs. 24,000. In respect of the buildings, machinery, furniture, etc., the rental stipulated in the lease was Rs. 89,999 for the first year and Rs. 95,000 for the second year. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer estimated the rental value of the buildings alone at Rs. 59,749 and Rs. 65,471 for the two years respectively. After making certain allowances, the net agricultural income in relation to the buildings alone was taken as Rs. 16,033 for the first year and Rs. 19,722 for the second year. Sixty per cent. of these amounts was brought to tax. These assessments were taken up in appe...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalai Iyengar Vs. Subba Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad219
(1) The defendant in O. S. No. 77 of 1955 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Mathurai has filed this appeal challenging the correctness of the decree against him for recovery of the sum of Rs. 6125-10-9 with interest thereon at 51/2 per cent per annum from 16-8-1955, the date of suit, till payment. The plaintiff, the respondent in this appeal claimed to be the assignee of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant and his wife, Kothaiammal in favour of one Ramaswami Raja, the younger brother of the plaintiff, for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 5500. Kothaimmal was dead and the defendant also was impleaded as a party to the suit. He denied that either himself or his wife executed the suit promissory note which he characterised as a forged document. He however admitted that on 13-11-1950 the date of the suit promissory note, he executed a promissory note in favour of Ramaswami Raja for a sum of Rs. 500 and that promissory note wa...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. Malayandi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ223
S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. This petition is directed against the dismissal of a landlord's application under Section 4-A(2) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Kuppuswami Chetty, the petitioner, owned originally an extent of 4 acres, 20 cents of land. Since the time of his purchase and even earlier, the respondent was cultivating the lands as a tenant. In M.A. No. 172 of 1957 the petitioner applied under Section 4-A(2) of the Act resuming one half of the lands for personal cultivation. There was an order on the basis of a compromise on that application on 5th October, 1957. Both the parties agreed that the landlord was to take possession of an extent of 2 acres, 10 cents leaving the tenant with the other 2 acres, 10 cents. There was a proportionate abatement in the rent payable. The landlord, after cultivating the lands himself for some time sold the property to a third party. He then came forward with another application under Section 4-A(2) of the Act for resuming fo...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Gengadaran Vs. the Panachayat Board of Shenbakkam by Its Presiden ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ327
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Panchayat Board of Shenbakkam on 5th May, 1958. It is not in dispute that prior to his election he had been convicted for offence under Sections 348 and 330 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and that five years had not elapsed from the date of the expiration of the period of the sentence. This would, therefore, have been a disqualification under Section 16(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, for his election as a member. Apparently nobody took the objection before his election. On a petition by the President of the Panchayat Board filed in February, 1960, under Section 19(1) of the Act, which was O.P. No. 37 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vellore, it was held that the present petitioner was not qualified to hold office as a member of the Panchayat under Section 17(a) of the Act and that he should, therefore, cease to ho...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Narayan Jai Govind Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: [1963]49ITR105(Mad)
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, OFFG. C.J. - This reference arises under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act (34 of 1953) and raises the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,33,277 was joint family property ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Manbhari Bai Charity Trust did not come into effect on the 2nd November, 1948, or only in 1951 ?'The facts giving rise to the reference are these : Dalooram Jai Narayan, a successful businessman in Madras, was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his son, Jai Narayan Jai Govind, Daloorams wife, by name, Manbhari Bai, died on 19th May, 1945. At the time of her death there existed in the business accounts of the family a credit entry of Rs. 75,000 in her favour. Some time prior to her death, she appears to have given a direction to her husband that a sum of Rs. 31,000 out of the amount standing to her credit in the family business accounts should be s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »