Chennai Court December 1962 Judgments
V.C. Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. C.M. Sivaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad294
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 259 of 1956 on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. On 6th February 1953, the defendant C. M. Sivaram executed two hundis for Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 1000 respectively payable on 6th June 1953, in favour of Srimathi Rukmini Ammal or order, for value received in cash. These hundis according to the plaintiff were really promissory notes. The plaintiff got assignments of the above two hundis in his favour from Rukmini Ammal on 20th January 1956, for valid consideration. The suit was filed for recovery of the above amount with interest.3. The plea of the defendant was that at the instance of a friend of his one T. S. Shanmugham, P. W. 2 in the case, for the purpose of accommodating the said Shanmugham, but without any receipt of consideration, the defendant affixed his signature on two blank hundis. However, the body of the two Hundies have been later on written up and it amounts to forgery. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sultan Pillai and Sons, a Registered Partnership Firm Vs. the Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad365
Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The facts can be briefly stated.2. On 24-7- 1956 a consignment of beedi tobacco consisting of 55 bags was despatched from Karamsad in the State of Mahrashtra to Tirunelveli junction. The goods had to pass through the Western Railway, Central railway and Southern railway and actually reached Tirunelveli Junction on 27-8-1956, which normally is a much longer time than usually required. The plaintiff who is the consignee of the goods found them wet on arrival and, therefore, did not take delivery. On 1-9-1956 the plaintiff wrote to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Southern railway as per Ex. A.13 that the above consignment reached Tirunelvelijunction after a pretty long time and that almost all the bags were found damaged due to rains as the bags had been loaded in an old wagon exposed to sun and rain in transit. By this letter the plaintiff also informed...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Keshewlal Shah Vs. Prabodhcnandra Panachand of Ahmedabad and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ97
V.B. Raju, J.1. One Lohar Babu Jakku was committed to the Session's Court on a charge under station 307, 1. P. Code, but the leered Sessions Judge of Kutch at Bhul framed a charge under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. To such a char go the accused pleaded guilty and there-upon he was convicted under Section 324, I. P. Code aim sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. under Section 207A, Criminal Procedure Code, if a Magistrate is of the opinion that an accused per sort should be committed for trial, he shall frame a charge under his hand, declaring with what offence the accused is charged. under Section 271 of the same Code, that charge has to be read out in Court and explained to the accused at the commencement of the proceedings in the Sessions Court, and the accused should be asked whether he pleads guilty to the charge or claims to be tried. The proceedings before the Sessions Court, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Kathaperumal Padayachi Vs. Muthiah Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ359
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition which arises out of proceedings instituted by the petitioner for restoration of possession under Section 4(5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) comes up before this Bench in view of the inconsistency between the judgment of Veeraswami, J. in C.R.P. No. 322 of 1960 and certain observations contained in Ganapati Iyer v. Ayyakannu (1961) 1 M.L.J. 217.2. The facts which have given rise to the application are not in dispute. The Dharmapura Adheenam in its capacity as trustee of Sri Sattanathaswami Devasthanam had leased out about 86 acres of land in Annavasal in Tanjore District to the respondent. Except in regard to specified extent of land, there was no prohibition against the respondent sub-leasing the properties to actual cultivators. In October, 1951, the respondent, had sublet an extent of 5.66 acres of land to the petitioner at a specified rent. The lease obtained by the...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad347
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decree of an Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, awarding Rs. 7290-78 nP. as damages to the respondent railway, payable by the appellant, the Port Trust of Madras. A consignment containing among other packages one package in which six cast steel cross-heads were packed arrived in the port of Madras by S. S. 'Clan Maclean' along With other goods on 17-9-1956. The number of packages that arrived by this steamer for the Southern Railway was a little more than 380. A tally receipt was duly issued by the Port Trust and the other packages were delivered to the consignee. But the package in question was missing although it was loaded in the port along with the rest of the consignment.A claim was made for payment of the value of the goods contained in the missing package on 23-4-1957, By the letter sent by the railway to the Port Trust. A 'C' certificate was issued by the Port Trust as required by the statute on 15-4-1957...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Sayani Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1965Mad46; [1963]49ITR903(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.(1) The question referred for the determination of this court is: 'Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 16835 which constituted the share income of the minor son of the petitioner in the assessable income of the petitioner assessee by applying the provisions of S. 16(3)(a)(iv) of the Income-tax Act was proper and valid?'The assessee is a dealer in plastic goods. He was a member of a partnership constituted under a deed dated 9-6-1951. This partnership was dissolved with effect from 27-10-1954. The assessee, who had to his credit a sum of Rupees 97,329-6-0 in the accounts of the partnership, was allowed to retain this sum in the business under the following circumstances. One of the partners, Kalidas Haribai Sayani, died sometime before the date of the document of dissolution. The assessee also purported to retire with effect from that date. The other members of the partnership had received their full share of the moneys lyi...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Narasimhalu and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC947(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in cloth. It was assessed for the assessment year 1957-58 in respect of its turnover which fell for taxation at different rates. There was an appeal in so far as part of the turnover was concerned, only with regard to the rate applicable thereto. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was contended that the assessee collected the tax only at the lower rate and that, therefore, the levy of tax on the assumption that it had collected the tax at the higher rate was unjustified. The total turnover involved was Rs. 85,664, parts of which turnover were taxed at different rates. The assessee pointed out that the prices at which it sold the goods during the assessment year did not disclose that it realised a higher gross profit margin than in the years 1956-57 and 1957-58, which would certainly have been the case if it had in fact collected higher sales tax without showing it as such. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner examined the records a...
Tag this Judgment!Srikantiah and ors. Vs. H.A. Bhojaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ418
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition to revise the order of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Ooty, in M.C. No. 8 of 1960 on his file. The proceedings in this case relate to obstruction of an alleged public road claimed by the respondent in the private property of the petitioners. In the enquiry under Section 139-A of the Criminal Procedure Code the Executive First Class Magistrate has found that no reliable evidence has been adduced by the petitioners in support of their denial of the public right of way.2. The learned Advocate for the respondent relied on the decision in Muzqffar Ahammad v. Khitindra Bhusan Gupta A.I.R. 1946 Cal. 302 in support of his contention that where a Magistrate finds in an enquiry under Section 139-A, Criminal Procedure Code, that there is no reliable evidence in support of the denial of the public right, it is not for the High Court to interfere in Revision. If this decision means that the High Court cannot interfere with an order under Section 139-A, Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Basaviah Gowder by L. R. B. Krishnan Vs. Commissioner of Gift Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR817(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - One Basaviah Gowder was the karta of Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his two sons. He had a divided brother, one Nanjunda Gowder. A partition had taken palace between them on June 14, 1951, and the properties which Basaviah Gowder had were properties which fell to his share at this partition. On October 10, 1957, Basaviah Gowder executed a gift deed whereby he made a gift of certain properties to his two sons, to hid divided brother and to a daughter. Basaviah Gowder died on March 23, 1959. A return under the Gift-tax Act was duly made by his son, Krishnan, as his legal representative. The value of the gift was given as Rs. 38,377 and after deducting the exempted limit of Rs. 10,000 the balance of Rs. 28,377 was offered as the taxable amount of the gifts. The Gift-tax Officer however declined to accept this value and proceeded to estimate the value of the gift at Rs. 1,82,000 and arrived at the net taxable value of the gift Rs. 1,72, 000. Against this a...
Tag this Judgment!Rasipuram Union Motor Service Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1962
Reported in: [1964]53ITR702(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question referred is :'Whether the assessee company was liable to super-tax levied under the provisions of section 23A for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 and in the sums determined by the Income-tax Officer ?'The assessee is a private limited company falling within section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The books of account of the company disclosed a loss of Rs. 23,686 for the calendar year 1954, the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1955-56. The department did not accept the book results and estimated the profits of the company under the proviso to section 13. Such estimated income was Rs. 38,888. Similarly, for the assessment year 1956-57 the income of the company was estimated at Rs. 53,619. According to the department the balance of profit, after deduction of the tax, available for distribution as dividend was Rs. 22,742 and Rs. 29,481 for the two assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively. The company did not declare any dividend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »