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.
Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad483
Jagadisan, J.1. The question referred under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is-Whether the income derived by assessee-trust from business is exempt from tax under the provisions of Section 4(3)(i) of the Act for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1955-56?'2. The assessee is a religious and charitable trust called 'Thiagasar Dharma Vanikam'. It was founded by one Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar under a deed of trust, dated 13-5-1948. The founder furnished the trust with, a sum of Rs.. 61,000, as a nucleus fund to be augmented and utilised for the purpose of the trust set out in the deed. A business in cotton yarn and cloth was started by the Board of trustees or the managing trustees of the said trust with the help of this sum of Rs. 61000. Even during the first year of business, a net profit of Rs. 5,94,493 was earned, and this was added to the capital account. In the next year, 1949-50, a profit of Rs. 85,105 accrued, and this was also capitalised. During the year ended 30th June 1...
Bhagat Estates Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR683(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The reference arises out of assessment proceedings under the the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee, which is a private company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, was originally assessed for the assessment year 1953-54 in respect of the previous accounting year ended March 31, 1953, on a total income of Rs. 29,086. The order of assessment was made on January 29, 1954. In March, 1958, action was taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 34 of the Act to reopen the assessment on the ground that some income had escaped assessment. As a result of the further enquiry the Income-tax Officer found that the total assessable income was Rs. 48,454. Thereupon an order of reassessment was passed computing the total income at Rs. 48,454. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner raising the contention that the Income-tax Officer erred in enhancing the annual letting value of one of the premises of the assessee at No. 11, Sembudoss Street,...
Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR798(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question referred under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is 'whether the income derived by the assessee-trust from business is exempt from tax under the provisions of section 4(3)(i) of the Act for the assessment years, 1952-53 to 1955-56 ?'The assessee is a religious and charitable trust called 'Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam'. It was founded by one Karumuthu Thiagarajan Chettiar under a deed of trust dated May 13, 1948. The founder furnished the trust with a sum of Rs. 61,000 as a nucleus fund to be augmented and utilised for the purpose of the trust set out in the deed. A business in cotton yarn and cloth was started by the board of trustees or the managing trustee of the said trust with the help of this sum of Rs. 61,000. Even during the first year of business a net profit of Rs. 5,94,493 was earned and this was added to the capital account. In the next year, 1949-1950, a profit of Rs. 85,105 accrued and this was also capitalised. During the year ended June 30, ...
V. Rajagopal Vs. Salem Provident Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad287; [1963]33CompCas446(Mad); (1953)1MLJ270
Venkatadri, J. 1. These appeals arise out of liquidation proceedings in the Salem Provident Society Ltd., which was formed as a private limited company and registered both under the Insurance-Act and the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on 12-2-1935 with its head office at Salem. The-society originally had 2000 shares of which 1020 shares were thrown open for subscription and 980 shares were not allotted to anybody. At the time of the formation of the company the petitioner V. Rajagopal had taken 50 shares. When the company was in difficulties the Board of directors passed a resolution that the remaining 980 shares should be made available to the public. At that time V. Rajagopal took 45 shares of Rs. 10 each, but the remaining shares were not allotted to anybody; nor any member of the public offered to take them. By another resolution Rajagopal allotted to himself 406 shares and allotted to his wife 160 shares. In the first instance he paid a sum of eight annas for each share. Thus Rajagop...
R. Kamala Alias Chellu Alias Mrs. L.S. Parthasarathi Vs. K. Rajagopala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad305
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. These petitions are against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli directing registration of the suit of the first respondent in that Court. The suit was originally brought by him in the form of an original petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis. Leave was refused; but time was granted for payment of the court-fees. There was also a provision in the order declining leave, that, in default of payment of the court-fee within the specified time, the petition would stand rejected.As is clear from the decretal order, in the original petitions, the petitioner was directed to pay costs to respondents 8 and 9. The first respondent unsuccessfully filed an appeal to this Court. While dismissing the appeal, this Court observed that the plaintiff would be allowed to drop from the plaint certain reliefs on a petition to the Court for the purpose, and at the same time indicated that in respect of the other prayers, court-fee payable was a fixed court-fee of R...
Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. Vs. Ramanlal Mohanlal Bros., Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad403; (1963)1MLJ382
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, which arises on a certificate granted by Jagadisan, J. under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent, raises a question of limitation with respect to a claim by a disappointed buyer for return of the advance amount paid by him on the contract of sale being repudiated by the seller. The suit giving rise to this appeal was originally instituted by the respondent in the civil Court at Surat on 15-6-1954; but, later on, on that Court declining to entertain the suit on a finding as to its jurisdiction, the plaint was presented to the District Munsif's Court, Sattur, in August 1955. It is not now disputed that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act with respect to the period covered by the presentation of the plaint in the civil Court at Surat and in the District Munsif's Court at Sattur. We have to consider in effect therefore whether the suit was barred on 15-6-1954, when it was presented to the Court at Surat....
Young Men's Indian Association Vs. Assistant Inspector of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ588Mad
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. A writ of prohibition is prayed for in this petition against the assistant inspector of labour, Madras, to prohibit him from proceeding further with the registration of the petitioner as a catering establishment under the provisions of the Madras Catering Establishments Act (Act XIII of 1958) hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1930). It is running a hostel and a canteen at Georgetown and at Mylapore in the city of Madras. The hostel is ran only for the benefit of the members of the association and the expenses incurred are divided amongst them. Only the members of the hostel or their ' authorized guests'' or the members of the association are served with food in the premises of the society. The business of the canteen consists of preparing edibles by the association on behalf of its members and supplying them with their requirements at fixed rates alleged to be fixed on the b...
Arunachalathammal Vs. Ramachandran Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad255; (1963)1MLJ254
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This second appeal concerns the succession to the estate of a Hindu unmarried female Chidambarathammal who died issueless sometime in February, 1957. The question that falls for consideration in the appeal relates to the true construction of Sections 6, 9 and 11 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which we shall refer to hereafter as the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these: One Shanmugha who together with his brother's son, the first respondent to this appeal, constituted a joint family, effected a partition with the latter. The partition arrangement is evidenced by a document dated 31st May 1940 under which Shanmugha became entitled to the properties set out in the schedules 1 to 3, to the plaint in the present litigation. Shanmugha died about two years afterwards leaving behind him his second wife and a minor daughter Chidambarathammal by her. At the time of his death he had in addition to the aforesaid properties, those set out in sche...
E.R. Janarthanam and ors. Vs. K. Sigamany
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ200
Ramakrishnan, J.1. In H.R.C. No. 410 of 1958, three persons, E.R. Janarthanam, E.R. Soundararajap, who are brothers, and E. Rajarathnammal, who is their mother applied under Section 7 of Act XXV of 1949 (The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as amended by Act VIII of 1951 and Act XXVI of 1955, for evicting the respondent, K. Sigamany, from the residential building, namely No. 96, Shanmugharoyan Street, Madras, which the respondent had been occupying on a monthly rent of Rs. 5-7-0. The Rent Controller allowed the Application and ordered eviction. The tenant appealed to the Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Madras, who is the appellate authority. The Appeal was allowed, and the petition for eviction was dismissed. This Revision is filed against the above order by the landlords, the petitioners in the first Court, under Section 12-B of the aforesaid Act, seeking revision of the order made by the appellate authority.2. Now, the main ground on which the first C...
Ramchandran Vs. Kothai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad174; (1963)1MLJ63
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This civil revision proceeding involves a simple question whether, when a court has held at the initial stage of the suit that the plaintiff (revision petitioner) has means to pay the court-fee due and could not be permitted to sue in forma pauperis, the same plaintiff could nevertheless urge at the later stage of the same suit that he ought to be so permitted, because a finding has supervened that court-fee due is not the court-fee initially set out in the plaint, but a higher amount. In rejecting this contention of the plaintiff, the court below has referred to several decisions and my attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel to Bava Sahib v. Abdul Ghani, AIR 1933 Mad 498, a Bench decision of this court, but none of the decisions cited at the Bar really impinges upon the simple principle which has to be applied to a situation of this kind. The decision in AIR 1933 Mad 498 really related to a converse situation of a person who had to pay a furthe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »