Chennai Court November 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.
W.P.A.R. Ramamoorthy and Ors. Vs. the Secretary, Tirunelveli District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ80
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The Valayar Plantation or Estate situate on Papanasam Mills seems to have originally belonged to two families, one of them consisting of respondents 1 to 5 and the other respondents 6 to 8 before the Industrial Tribunal. As a result of partition between members of the families the estate was divided by metes and bounds and shares therein after such division were allotted to each of respondents 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. But for purposes of management, it is stated,. they entered into a partnership agreement under which the first respondent who maintained the labour force was to utilise the labour on the shares allotted to each of the respondents. This firm was dissolved with effect from 16th August, 1958. 34 workmen belonging to the labour force and represented by the Tirunelveli District National Plantation Workers' Union having been dismissed from service, it eventually assumed the proportion of an industrial dispute, the subject-matter of Reference for adjudication,...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.C. Munirathnam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ398
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The question that stands referred to us isWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the several activities of the assessee constituted one business for the purpose of assessment 2. The assessment year is 1951-52. The assessee is the owner of a brick works and is also a partner in some other brick works. Besides this business he runs a ration shop, plies lorries for hire, owns a petrol bunk, derives income from various partner-ship concerns and in addition to all of these engages himself in film distribution. For the assessment year in question no return was filed and the assessment was accordingly made under Section 23(4) of the Act on an estimate. In the previous assessment year the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 92,140 in film distribution and a loss of Rs. 41,330 in the head-office. The loss of that year was sought to be set-off against the estimated income of the assessment year 1951-52 and th...
Mathew Abraham Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR467(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - A firm of partnership of five persons called Mahendragiri Tea Estate was constituted by a deed dated February 28, 1955. Each of the partners had an one fifth-share in the profits or losses of the firm. The managing partner was one Mathew Abraham, who will hereinafter be referred to as the assessee. Under the terms of the partnership, the assessee was entitled as managing partner to a monthly allowance of Rs. 250 and also a commission at the rate of twelve per cent. on the net profits available for distribution amongst the partners after meeting all the expenses relating to the business of the partnership an charging the monthly allowance of Rs. 250. The assessee received allowance and commission for the assessment years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 as per particulars given below :Previous year endedAssessment yearAllowanceCommission Rs.Rs.31-3-19561956-573,0008,81131-3-19571957-583,0004,33231-3-19581958-593,0005,930Besides the said allowance and commission he also receiv...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. B. C. Munirathnam Naidu.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1962
Reported in: [1966]59ITR492(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us is :'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the several activities of the assessee constituted one business for the purpose of assessment ?'The assessment year is 1951-52. The assessee is the owner of a brickworks and is also a partner in some other brick-works. Besides this business, he runs a ration shop, plies lorries for hire, owns a petrol bunk, derives income from various partnership concerns and in addition to all of these, engages himself in film distribution. For the assessment year in question no return was filed and the assessment was accordingly made under section 23(4) of the Act on an estimate. In the previous assessment year the assessee had incurred a loss of Rs. 92,140 in film distribution and a loss of Rs. 41,330 in the head office. The loss of that year was sought to be set off against the estimated income of the assessment year 1951-52 and that was di...
Raghuvir Kumar and anr. Vs. Shanmughavadivu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1971Mad330; (1962)2MLJ193
1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in this appeal. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged 3/10th share of A and B schedule items and for past mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2400 per annum from the date of suit till delivery of possession, or in the alternative, for possession of the properties equal in extent and value to that of the properties set out in the will dated 2-5-1949 executed by one Palaniswami Nadar in favour of the first plaintiff. The first and second plaintiffs claimed respectively to be the son and fourth wife of the said Palaniswamy Nadar who dies on 5-1-1960 and the suit came to be filed on that basis. the first defendant is the third wife of Palaniswamy Nadar and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his sons through the first defendent. The fifth defendant is the father of the first defendant and sister's husband of Palaniswam...
Uthamram Vs. K.M. Abdul Kasim Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad221
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing an applicationfiled Under Section 44-A C.P.C. by the appellant for executionof a judgment obtained by him in a foreign Court, the High Court of the Colony of Singapore. On 2nd October 1993, the Court entered judgment in favour of the appellant against the respondent firm, which was doing business* in Singapore for a sum of l, 60, 408-84 dollars, inclusive of costs. 3y a supplemental judgment delivered on 23th May 1954, a quondam partner of the respondent firm one Mohammad Ismail, was also held liable for the entire amount. It appears that under the rules governing the practice of that court, no formal decree on the basis of the judgment is issued for regulating the rights of parties. If execution were to be levied of a judgment entered up for payment of money a copy of the judgment alone is filed. Where the decree-holder obtains part-satisfaction there is no procedur...
Sha Rikhabdas Ghaganraj Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad337
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may call for the records of the Collector of Central Excise in D.A. Dis. No. VIII/10/179/59 Cus. Adj. dated 26-11-1959 and quash that order. 2. On 27-9-1958, the Customs authorities raided the premises of the petitioner and recovered large number of packets of 7 O'clock blades from those premises. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the goods should not be seized as having been illicitly imported into India. He produced all his accounts before the Customs authorities, and, after a perusal of these accounts, 93 packets containing in all about 20,000 blades were released, the Customs authorities being apparently satisfied that the possession of that quantity was covered by valid receipts of purchases produced by the petitioner. In respect of the remaining quantity however, the petitioner's claim that he had made purchases from one S. K. Mehta of Bombay was held to be not satisfa...
M.M. Abbas Bros., Represented by Its Partner, MoheIn Bhai and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ219
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are connected appeals respectively by M.M. Abbas Bros., carrying on business at No. 7, Sembudoss Street, G.T., Madras, and Saleh Bros., similarly carrying on business at No. 6, Sembudoss Street, G.T., Madras, from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer, J., (as he then was) in W.P. Nos. 732 and 733 of 1958 before the learned Judge. Both the appellants pray the Court for the issue of a Writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing the order of Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2216 (Home Department) dated 5th August, 1958, exempting the above-named business premises from the operation of Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (Act XXV of 1949), by virtue of powers vested in Government under Section 13 of the said Act. The learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J.) dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that, under the circumstances of the matter, the Government were justified in the exercise of powers of exemption under Section 13...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Allied Textile Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1962
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ343; [1963]14STC460(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The respondents are dealers in 'mill stores' at Coimbatore. They were assessed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the year 1958-59 on a turnover of Rs. 2,68,000 and odd. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 56,300 and odd was assessed as representing sales in the course of business of the petitioners (sic). The respondents objected to the inclusion of this turnover in the assessment on the ground that they covered what they described as 'accommodation sales'. The respondents having failed before the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, but again failed. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the respondents succeeded. The Tribunal held that the turnover of Rs. 56,300 represents accommodation sales and the petitioners were entitled to have this excluded from the taxable turnover. The State of Madras has preferred this revision petition against the said order of the Tribunal,2....
A.E. Shanmugham Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ331
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 22nd April, 1960, by the management, on a finding that the petitioner had engaged himself as an Ayurvedic and Siddha Practitioner, which was prejudicial to the interest of the employer. The propriety of this dismissal was challenged by the petitioner, in an application under Section 33-I on the ground that there was a reference pending the industrial dispute for adjudication on the date of the dismissal. It would appear that there was an award on 26th March, 1960 which was published on 20th April, 1960. The charge against the petitioner was framed on 21st November, 1959 and, as I said, he was dismissed from service on 22nd April, i960. The Labour Court, Madras, has found that the dismissal was improper and it was an act of victimisation. Nevertheless, the Labour Court proceeded thus:This is a case which cannot be treated as a dismissal because there is no misconduct as such meriting punishment. The management cannot als...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »