Chennai Court August 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.
S.V.R.Y.K.N. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR576(Mad)
The judgement of the court was delivered byRAMACHANDRA IYER, OFFG. C.J. - The following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there was material for the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of 6,136 dollars constituted income assessable to tax ?'The assessee was originally a member of a Hindu undivided family which carried on money-lending business at Batupahat in Federated Malay States. In the course of this business properties used to the purchased by the family in lieu of outstanding due. They undoubtedly formed part of the stock-in-trade of the business. The family also earned profits by buying and selling immovable properties. In such cases properties used to be purchased for cash. It can, therefore, be said that the family did business in buying and selling properties in addition to their principal business of money-lending. All such properties were recorded in the books of the money-lending business with sepa...
Madurai City Co-operative Milk Supply Union Vs. Food Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ166
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This revision is directed against the order Of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissing the appeal against the conviction of the petitioners of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.This being a third offence of the kind committed by the first petitioner, Madurai City Co-operative Milk Supply Union, it was sentenced to any a fine of Rs. 3000, the minimum prescribed by the proviso to Sub-section (1)(a)(iii) of Section 18, The second petitioner, who was the secretary of the first petitioner, was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 30. Both the courts below have found that the sample of cow's milk boiled and cooled, purchased from the first petitioner, through its salesman Uthaman, on the morning of 2-2.2.1959 from the quantity in a sealed can, and meant for the Maternity home, maintained by the municipality, was adulterated with added water of 11 per cent.The Public Analyst for Madurai Municipality certified...
Madurai City Co-operative Milk Supply, Through Its Present Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ104
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, dismissing the appeal against the conviction of the petitioners-of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This being a third offence of the kind committed by the first petitioner, Madurai City Co-operative Milk Supply Union, it was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, the minimum prescribed by the Proviso to Sub-section (1) (a) (iii) of Section 16. The second petitioner, who was the Secretary of the first petitioner, was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 30. Both the Courts below have found that the sample cow's milk boiled and cooled purchased from the first petitioner, through its salesman Uthaman, on the morning of February, 2, 1959, from the quantity in a sealed can, and meant for the Maternity Home, maintained by the Municipality, was adultered with added water of 11 per cent. The Public Analyst for Madurai Municipality c...
P.S. Desikachari and ors. Vs. Associated Publishers, Madras (P) Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad327; [1962(4)FLR429]
S. Ramachandra Iyer, Offg. C.J. (1) These petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to W. P. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1959 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and for quashing the orders passed thereon on 8th july 1960, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for certain monetary compensation.(2) The respondent is a private limited company, which owns and publishes the 'Mail' one of the premier English daily newspapers of Madras P. S. Desikachari, C. Theobald and A. krihnamurthi, the petitioners in the above petitioners, were employed by were employed by the respondent as the Chief Reporter, Sports Editor and Reporter respectively for the paper. Each one of them had put in more than 35 years of continuous service n the establishment; by the year 1956, they had attained respectively 62, 58 and 58 years of age. The relationship between the management and the petiti9oners during the entire period of serv...
S. Narayana Doss (Died) and anr. Vs. Arumugathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad259
(1) This is a Letters Patent appeal against the judgment of Subrahamnyam, J., in S. A. No. 73 of 1955, on the file of this court, confirming the judgment and decree in A. S. Nos. 88 and 90 of 1954 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli.(2) The decision of the dispute between the parties to this appeal depends upon the true construction of the will, Ex. A. 1 in the case executed by one Velayutha Konar on 11-2-1924. The testator died in 1927 leaving him surviving his widow, Sellathammal and three daughters, Arumugathammal, Subbammal and Shanmughammal by his pre-deceased wife. Under the will he made bequests in favour of his three daughters, and it is the nature of these bequests that is in controversy. The third daughter Shanmugathammal died in 1929. She dies issueless. Sellathammal, Velayutha Konar's widow died on 9-1-1943. Shanmugathammal's husband instituted the suit, O. S. No. Of 1953 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tirunelveli, for possession of the immoveable p...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P.N. Ethiraj.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR484(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question for our consideration is :'Whether the said payment of Rs. 3,600 is deductible in the computation of the total income of the assessee for assessments of 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 under any of the provisions of the Income-tax Act ?'The reference has been made on behalf of the Commissioner of Income-tax, who attacks the finding of the Tribunal that these amounts are allowable items of expenditure, being valid expenditure incurred for the purpose of the business presumable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. The department contends that these payments represent outlays in respect of capital acquisition and are of a capital nature. In order to appreciate the contentions of either side, following facts are relevant :One Colasco was carrying on a business in foreign liquor with restaurant attached as the sole proprietor till May 1, 1946. With effect from that date, he took in this assessee as a partner. This partnership was not registered under the Act. After ...
The Trustees of the Madras Port Trust Vs. the London Trading Company, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad415; (1962)2MLJ45
ORDER(1) This revision petition raises a question of limitation. lie respondent, a merchant at Madras, imported 8 package, of diesel oil engines from foreign countries. The consignment reached Madras Harbour on 10-10-1949, when they were cleared by the Port Trust Authorities and transported to their warehouse within their premises. It appears that the goods had been ordered and imported by the respondent in contravention of the Indian Trade Control Regulations. On 11-3-1953 the packages were confiscated to Government for such contravention. The Port Trust authorities, to whom the shortage fees and fees for services rendered were due made a claim upon the respondent. The latter made certain payments, which reduced the claim of the former to a considerable extent. The balance due was found to be Rs. 919-14-0 for recovery of which a suit was filed in the court of Small Causes, Madras. The suit was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation.The...
N.V.S. Kadirvel Nadar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ325
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm owning a cardamom estate in Papansam reserve forest in Tirunelveli district. It was assessed to tax under Madras Act (V of 1955) by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madurai, on 30th March, 1957. Aggrieved, by the decision of the Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madurai, who allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for re-fixing the tax. The order of the Appellate Authority is dated 15th July, 1957. The petitioner thereupon moved the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Board of Revenue) by way of revision under Section 34 of the Act by preferring the Revision Petition on 14th July, 1958. The application was dismissed by the Commissioner on 21st July, 1958. The following extract of the order discloses the reason for the dismissal:The Commissioner is empowered to revise the orders of his subordinates under Section 34 only w...
Abdul Kareem Vs. C.M. Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ382
S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. The order of the lower appellate Court cannot be supported. The learned Judge in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, has reversed an order of eviction passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller on the ground that to do so would be unjust. The petitioner is the owner of a building which he purchased in the year 1944. At that time he was in occupation of his own building along with the other members of the family. But there was a partition between the members of the family and it is conceded that by about 1952, the petitioner, his mother, sister and other members of the family had to take up their residence in a rented house; the family house having been allotted to the other sharers. The petitioner thereupon filed an application against the tenant claiming eviction so as to facilitate personal occupation. That petition unfortunately had a chequered career. The Rent Controller found that the application was bona fide and directed eviction. On appeal, howe...
The State (Executive Officer) Vs. Sellappa Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ98
Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal should be dismissed on a short ground. The respondents who were charged for an offence under Section 119 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, were acquitted of the offence. The case against them was; that they obstructed or molested P.W. 1 by beating and shoeing him in the course of discharging his duty. P.W. 1 is only the employee of P.W. 2. It is P.W. 2 who has. entered into a contract with the Panchayat in regard to the right to collect cart tolls. P.W. 1 is neither a person who is employed by the Panchayat nor a person with whom the Panchayat has entered into a contract. That being the case, the offence, whatever else it may be, is certainly not within the ambit of Section 119 of the Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »