Chennai Court February 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.
M.S.A. Jayaraman Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ300
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is directed against the Judgment of Veeraswami, J., arises out of an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the State Government restraining and prohibiting it from removing the appellant from his office as Chairman of Rasipuram Municipal Council. This Municipal Council consisted of twenty members. The appellant was elected as its Chairman on 20th April, 1959. On 30th June, 1961, 13 members of the Council gave notice to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, under Sub-clause (2) of Section 40-A of the Madras District Municipalities Act of their intention to move a motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairman. Annexed to the notice was a copy of the motion sought to be moved. It also contained four items of complaint against the Chairman. The papers were duly presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who issued notice, convening a meeting of the Council for 26th July, 1961...
P.T. Narayana Ayyar and ors. Vs. Baghirathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ123
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellants under Section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is within time. The facts necessary for the consideration of the question can be briefly set out:One Lakshmi Ammal who was a resident of Perur in Coimbatore district died in the year 1940 leaving a will dated 9th May, 1921. During her lifetime she was worshipping Sri Chakra Rajeswari whose idol had been installed in her house. By her will, the testatrix set apart two items of properties for the conduct of worship of the deity on ordinary days and also on other important festive occasions. Out of the surplus income available after meeting the puja expenses the will directed that the trustees were to feed as many Brahmins as possible who did veda Parayanam at the time of the annual festival of Perur Devasthanam. 2. The appellants who are certain Brahmin residents of the locality, alleging th...
Mettur Sandal Wood Oil Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR781(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - Chandappa Iyer and his three sons originally constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. The family was carrying on business in sandalwood oil. There was a partition in the family on October 6, 1954, and the assets of the family including the business were valued at Rs. 40,94,420. Each member of the family got an one-fourth share. The business, as such, was allotted to the shares of Chandappa Iyer, the father, and one of his sons, Hanumantha Rao. The other two sons, Subba Rao and Seshagiri Rao, left the business. There is no dispute that the family business was taken over as an integral whole by Chandappa Iyer and Hanumantha Rao who continued it as a firm by entering into a partnership on October 7, 1954, the day next after the division. There were several trade debts due to the family from third parties forming part of the business and they were carried over by the firm into its books of account. This firm of partnership was assessed to income-tax for the assessmen...
Al. Sp. Pl. Ot. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. the Special Deputy Tahsil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad377; [1963]47ITR759(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order ofdistraint dated 24/28-91959 issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Income-tax Collections, Rama-nathapuram district at Madurai. The Special Deputy Tahsildar has been impleaded as the first respondent and the Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, as the second respondent.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are not in dispute and can be briefly stated. The petitioner was a partner of a firm called 'S. M. Viswanathan Chettiar and others' carrying on the business of exhibition of films, with its place of business at Karaikudi. The two other partners of the firm were S. M. Viswanathan Chettiar and Rm. Rm. Arunachelam Chettiar. The Partnership instruments constituting the firm was dated 28-6-1950 and 5-9-1950. The firm was a registered firm, registered under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1952-53 dela...
Al. Sp. Pl. St. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. the Special Deputy Tahsil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ426
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of distraint, dated 24/28th September, 1959 issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Income-tax Collections, Ramanathapuram District at Madurai. The Special Deputy Tahsildar has been impleaded as the first respondent and the Income-tax Officer,, Karaikudi, as the second respondent.2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are not in dispute and can be briefly stated. The petitioner was a partner of a firm called 'S. M. Viswanathan Chettiar and others ' carrying on the business of exhibition of films, with its place of business at Karaikudi. The two other partners of the firm were S. M. Viswanathan Chettiar and Rm. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar. The partnership instruments constituting the firm are dated 28th June, 1950 and 5th September, 1950. The firm was a registered firm, registered under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act. For t...
M. Sajjanam Vs. State of Madras, Represented by Collector of Kanyakuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad49
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The question pressed in the appeal relates to what is termed proper pension payable to a Retired Government servant. The erstwhile State of Travancore fixed a certain pension for the plaintiff who had rendered service as District Munsif. The suit was laid in effect to establish a claim for higher pension, though in the relief column it was prayed that the suit was for re-settlement of the pension due to the plaintiff.It is well known that no Government servant has an enforceable right to pension. A pension is an ex-gratia payment made to a Government servant in respect of his past conduct and service out of the discretion of the Government. It is open to them to refuse pension to a Government servant, though such refusal must be based upon grounds set forth in the Civil Service and Pension Rules. I presume similar rules apply to the Travancore Government Servants. No suit would lie to declare a right to a pension, as a Government servant cannot say that he has go...
B. Bastimull JaIn Vs. the Collector of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ517
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner was a pawn-broker. He had obtained a licence for carrying on business as pawn-broker under the Madras Pawn-Brokers' Act, (XXIII of 1943) from the Collector of Madras. The licence is being renewed year after year. He applied for the renewal of his licence for the year 1961-62. The Collector, in response to his application, called upon him to show cause why the renewal should not be refused. According to the notice so served upon him by the Collector, the petitioner had had two convictions for certain violations of the provisions of the Pawn-brokers' Act. The Collector called upon the petitioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be regarded as a person of bad character to whom a licence could be refused. The petitioner claims that the two convictions referred to by the Collector were for trivial offences and that he pleaded guilty only for the sake of avoiding an expensive defence. His first conviction was for an alleged offence of charging ...
Harbour Engineering Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR249(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference application under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business at Madras as repairers of ships calling at the Madras Port. It commenced its business on and from January 1, 1955. The shareholders of the company and the number of shares held by them are as follow :1. D.J. Hayden 50 shares.2. M.V. Sastry50 shares.3. Mammu Meera Syed Mohammed 50 shares.Total150 shares.All the tree shareholders are directors of the company, and the first of them is also the managing director. The managing director is a qualified mechanical engineer. M.V. Sastry is an electrical engineer with considerable experience. Syed Mohammed is a partner in Messrs. K.P.V. Sheik Mohammed Rowther & Co., well-known steamer agents at Madras. On and from April 1, 1955, the directors claimed to be paid remuneration at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for each director. The managing director claimed an additional salary of Rs. 1,250 per...
Vadivelu Padayachi Vs. Sanjeevi Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ358
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which arises from the judgment of Srinivasan J., in W.P. No. 286 of 1961 relates to the validity of the election of the appellant as Chairman of the Panruti Panchayat Union Council. The election was held on 12th October, 1960. The Madras Panchayat Act of 1958 (Act XXXV of 1958) which will be referred to hereafter as the Act, provides for the establishment of two representative corporate bodies for the administration of villages : (1) the Panchayat . which is the local authority for the village for which it is established. (2) The Panchayat Union comprising several villages grouped together under the National Extension Service Programme with a view to facilitate community development under an organized block system. The former is administered by an elected Panchayat. The statute provides for a President and a Vice-President. The latter, namely, the Panchayat Union Council is to consist of persons who are indirectly elected to it, that is, by const...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Standard Motor Products of Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1962
Reported in: [1962]46ITR814(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. is a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act engaged in the manufacture of 'Standard' motor-cars and 'Ferguson' tractors. It entered into an agreement on September 22, 1949, with the Standard Motor Co. Ltd., Conventry, Untied Kingdom, under the terms of which it became entitled to import into this country parts and components for assembling cars and tractors. The company started manufacturing cars and tractors on and from May 1, 1950. The capital employed by the company is Rs. 14,38,760. The company imported spare parts from the United Kingdom under the terms of the agreement aforesaid and not merely used the spare parts for assembling cars but also sold them as spared. In the year of assessment 1952-53 ('previous year' ending December 31, 1951) under the Indian Income-tax Act the company returned an income of Rs. 6,67,850. The Income-tax Officer computed the profit arising out of the dealing in spare parts, no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »