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.
In Re: Vijayam and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC504(Mad)
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition by Messrs Vijayam and Co., represented by its managing director Sri C. V. Srinivasan, to revise the judgment of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, convicting the petitioner under Section 174, Indian Penal Code. The complaint in this case is that Messrs Vijayam and Co., which I shall hereafter refer to as the company, refused to comply with the summons sent by P. W. 1, Sri R. Govindaraj, Commercial Tax Officer (Administration), North Madras, to produce the accounts for the year 1954-55 at 11 a.m. on 21st March, 1960. Exhibit P. 1 is the summons sent to the company along with the covering letter exhibit P. 3, and exhibit P. 2 is the acknowledgment by the company for the receipt of the summons. Admittedly, the company did not comply with the summons. It is clear from the summons, exhibit P. 1, that the company was summoned merely to produce the account books. Hence, the offence, if any, committed by the company is one falling under Section 175, Indian Penal Co...
Ct. Ct. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. M.C. Muthuvelu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ399
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner and the suit was on a pro-note. The pro-note which had been executed by the defendants-respondents on 23rd May,, 1951 had been renewed on 21st May, 1954. The suit having been filed on 25th June, 1958, the defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif of Devakottai upheld this contention, rejecting the plea of the plaintiff that the period from 21st May, 1954 to 30th June, 1955 should be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. In coming to this conclusion, the learned District Munsif construed Explanation I to Section 2 of Madras. Act I of 1955 to mean that, where a joint Hindu family is an. agriculturist, every coparcener thereof should be deemed to be an agriculturist only in a case where the joint family is not liable to pay land revenue exceeding Rs. 150 per annum. As, in the instant case, the joint family liability in respect of land revenue was in excess of this figure, t...
K.S. Ramachandran Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ407
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in R.P. No. 24 of 1958 on his file, dated 11th June, 1959.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows. The petitioner's father and the petitioner were members of the Koohur Co-operative Credit Society, hereinafter referred to as the Society, the second respondent herein. The petitioners father had obtained loans from the Society and had offered securities of his properties for the repayment of the debt. It appears that the petitioner and his father had been making various instalments of payments towards the debts. A pass book had been issued by the Society making the credits and debits relating to the debts incurred. The Society had only one employee, who was functioning both as cashier and clerk. In the year 1956, it was discovered that the cashier-cum-clerk had misappropriated large sums of money...
N. Deviah Gowder Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC422(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore (North), served upon the petitioner a notice dated 29th September, 1959, intimating him that with the coming into force of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on and from 1st April, 1959, the sales of arecanuts by him could no longer be classified as agricultural produce within the definition of turnover in Section 2(r) and explanation (1) and that he was liable to pay tax on his sales of arecanut from that date. The officer, therefore, called upon him to file returns in the prescribed form showing his estimated total and taxable turnover for the year 1959-60, which should be based on the turnover of actual sales of arecanut the petitioner had made during 1958-59. The notice wound up by a warning that in default of submission of return as required, his turnover would be estimated to the best of judgment at Rs. 6 lakhs and he would be provisionally assessed for the year 1959-60. Certain correspondence followed between the ...
Sakalchand Babulal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Second Additional City Circ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR673(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to call for the records of the Income-tax Officer and to quash the certificate issued to the Collector under section 46 of the Income-tax Act. The facts set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition are these. The petitioner was the karta of a Hindu Undivided family, which was carrying on business in Bangalore. In Samvat year 1998, the assessee-petitioner had also business in art silk and cotton yarn with dealers in Bombay and Madras. In respect of the profits arising in British India, an assessment was made in 1943-44. The tax was paid. Subsequently, the business came to an end and the assessee left for his native place. It is also alleged that in 1945 the Hindu undivided family ceased to exist.Under section 22(2) of the Act, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling for the submission of a return for the assessment year 1944-45. The pet...
Raju and Mannar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR202(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - Messrs. Raju and Mannar, Salem, is a registered firm carrying on the business of transport, by plying lorries for hire. It owned a fleet of ten lorries. In the accounting year - year ended March 31, 1955, relevant to the assessment year 1955-56 - some of these lorries were fitted with new engines capable of being run on diesel oil replacing the old petrol driven engines. In the assessment proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act for the year of assessment 1955-56, the firm claimed 'development rebate' under section 10(2)(vib) of the Act and extra depreciation on these engines newly fitted to the vehicles. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. On appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the decision of the Income-tax Officer was affirmed. The Appellate authority held that 'development rebate' was permissible only in respect of plant or machinery which was 'installed' and that fitting of new diesel engines to old lorries did not amount to any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›