Chennai Court October 1962 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.
Rainbow Trading Co. by Its Proprietor S. Heerachand Vs. Assistant Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad434; 1963CriLJ636
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, filed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. That provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution. But the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned Judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. But in view of importance of the matter and as the learned Advocate-General had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned counsel for the appellant to argue that point.2. We shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the Fundamental Rights declared under Articles 14 and 20(3).3. The appellant is a merchant at Madras trading under the name of Rainbow Trading ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR867(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The two questions that stand referred ar :'(1) Whether the sum of Rs. 1,28,716 is assessable as income under any of the provision of the Act?(2) If the answer is in the affirmative, the assessment years in which the amount falls to be assessed by suitable apportionment?'The assessee is a registered firm trading in yarn. Its business income for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 was Rs. 87,655 and Rs. 1,35,482 respectively as returned by it and this was accepted by the department. The assessee firm purchased two properties in Kilpauk Garden Road on 2nd April, 1943; they were (i) 'Woodlands', a bungalow with 85 grounds appertaining to it; (ii) 'Lutterals Gardens', a bungalow with 138 grounds. The property called 'Lutterals Gardens' was requisitioned by the Collector of Madras for locating offices of various Government departments on 30th January, 1944. Subsequently on 24th May, 1949, the Collector of Madras notified the intention of the Government to acquire the prop...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Essen Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR569(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, the following question has been referred to us under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act : 'Whether there are materials for the Tribunal to hold that the debt in question was incurred in the course of the business so as to make its loss deductible under section 10(2)(xi) ?'The assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is carrying on business as managing agent of several concerns. It is the managing agent of the India Cements Ltd., and it is also having an insurance agency. Another company called Amer Hind ., hereinafter called as the managed company or the company, was formed for the manufacture and sale of typewriters, carbon papers, typewriting ribbons, stencil papers and other articles. This company was managed by a company called American Agencies Ltd. The managing agency of the American Agencies Ltd. was, however, terminated on and from July 16, 1950. The share...
Matheson Bosanquet and Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR380(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a private limited company. Its principal business is to act as managing agents of tea companies. It had the managing agency of an estate called the Burnside Estate from 1949 onwards. The owner of the estate, one Stisted, wanted to sell the estate. The assessee entered into an agreement with the owner on December 20, 1954, by which it undertook to purchase the estate for itself or for a person to be nominated by it for a consideration of Rs. 7 1/2 lakhs. An initial advance of one lakh of rupees was paid. But it appears that even in advance of execution of the sale deed, the balance of 6 1/2 lakhs of rupees was also paid, the assessee borrowing the amount from the National Bank. The possession of the estate was taken over on January 1, 1955.Thereafter, the assessee floated a company under the name of 'Lucky Valley Tea Estates Company Limited' with an issued capital of 5 lakhs of rupees of 50,000 shares of Rs. 10 each. This company was registered on July 18...
Pichai Ammal Vs. Vellayya thevar Alias Ochu thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad198
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 113 of 1947 on the file of the Sufi-Court, Madurai, against an appellate order (original order having dismissed the application) setting aside an ex parte decree which was passed on 15th April 1958, for mesne profits. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was tiled : nearly four months after the decree was passed on the ground that there was no proper service of summons on the defendant who consequently did not come to know of the decree till sometime before he filed the application. It was not disputed that the first summons was sent to the defendant by registered post and was returned with the endorsement that it was refused by the first defendant.The postman who has been examined as a witness and whose evidence has been accepted by both the Courts below has stated that he tendered the registered cover containing the summons but that the latter declined to accept the same. No ...
V. Ramiah Vs. State Bank of India, by Its Secretary and Treasurer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad335; (1963)IILLJ304Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner entered service in 1941 as a cashier in the former Imperial Bank of India. The undertaking of the Bank was in 1955 transferred to the State Bank of India, as it was constituted by the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 43 of this Act empowers the State Bank to appoint its officers, advisers and employees and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. The petitioner was taken over into the service of the State Bank and was in 1958 appointed as head cashier under an agreement for service entered into on 12-8-1958 with it. Clause 1 of the agreement provided that the petitioner'shall be and continue to be the head cashier of Virudhunagar branch of the bank from 27-7-1958 at a monthly salary of Rs. 182 only rising, subject to approved service, by such increments as may be granted by the bank at its absolute discretion, such service being determinable on either side by two calendar months' notice to that eff...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. K. Kapoor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ58; [1963]14STC248(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. This petition arises out of assessment proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, is the petitioner. The respondent who is the assessee was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, for the year 1954-55 on a gross and net turnover of Rs. 51,381-6-0. The assessee is stated to be carrying on business as banker and financier advancing money on hire-purchase agreements of old motor cars. He is also a dealer in motor tyres and tubes. No assessment was made on the assessee in respect of the turnover covered by the hire-purchase agreements in the original assessment dated 21st October, 1955. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer however revised the assessment purporting to act under Section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and computed the turnover of the assessee for the year 1954-55 at Rs. 4,68,515-37 nP. This was on the footing that the turnover relating to hire-pu...
K. Shanmugha Sundaram Vs. Special Deputy Tahsildar, Income-tax Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR9(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction to forbear the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Coimbatore, the first respondent, from proceeding with the sale of the joint family properties of the petitioner and his brother. The second respondent is the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore.The petitioner is the manager of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his brother. His father, Kandaswami, was a partner in a firm of partnership styled Palaniandavar and Co. The other partners of the firm were : 1. Ammasai Gounder and 2. Subbanna Gounder. The business of the partnership consisted in supplying jaggery to several distilleries. Kandaswami died in December, 1945. The Prohibition Act put an end to the distillery business and the firm of Palaniandavar and Co. had necessarily to wind up their business. The income-tax department discovered the existence of the firm only in March, 1945, and issued not...
Sp. Rm. Valliammi Achi Vs. M. Ar. Al. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad224
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal involves only one question, and that is whether the suit laid by the appellant on the basis of a deposit made with a Nattukottai Chettiar firm resident in this country, but doing banking business in Burma, could be properly laid in the Indian courts. The learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga, from whose judgment this appeal arises, has answered that question in the negative.2. The appellant had certain stridhana moneys belonging to her. According to the usage of the community to which she belongs, such moneys are generally invested with a money-lending firm run by the members of the community. She accordingly, deposited the money with a joint family firm, doing money lending business under the vilasam 'M. AR', at Rangoon. The debtor family consisted of one Ariyan Chettiar and his three sons, Alagappa, Ramaswami and Murugappa. After the death of the father, the sons divided the family assets and liabilities. The amount due under the deposit to th...
Muhammad HussaIn and anr. Vs. Ganga Naicken Alias Gangama Naicken and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad222; (1963)2MLJ209
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of this court in L. P. A. No. 7 of 1958. That appeal, which was disposed of by Rajamannar, C. J., and one of us, was preferred against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami, J., in A. A. A. O. No. 102 of 1957. which, in turn, was the appeal against the order of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, in A. S. No. 354 of 1956 confirming the order of the court of tile Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli in E. P. No. 64 of 1955 in O. S. No. 128 of 1945.2. The question related to limitation. The decree directed delivery of possession of certain immovable property and payment of Rs. 135 for past mesne profits and further directed ascertainment of future mesne profits from date of plaint under Order 20 Rule 12 C. P. C. E. P. No. 64 of 1955 was filed by the decree-holder, the applicant before us, for delivery of possession of the property. This execution petition was filed admittedl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »