Chennai Court August 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.
Natarajan and anr. Vs. Karumana Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ81
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit Was filed in forma pauperis for partition after setting aside a sale deed executed on 14th June, 1943, by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of the third defendant in the suit and for past and future mesne profits. The plaint allegations Were that the first defendant, the father, was leading an immoral life and that the third defendant, taking advantage of the father's immorality, obtained a sale deed from him. Besides being tainted by illegality and immorality, the sale was alleged to be devoid of consideration. It was also claimed that the properties were sold for Rs. 2,900 while they were in fact worth much more than that amount.2. First defendant is the father of the plaintiffs, and the second defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiffs. They remained ex parte in the suit. The third defendant purchaser contended that the sale was for proper and adequate consideration and that it Was effected for the benefit of th...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Muthu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ688; (1963)IMLJ55
Sadasivam, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused Muthu Naicker under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The prosecution case is that on 17-5-1960 at about 9-35 a.m. at Venkatappa Chettiar Road, Shevapet, the accused was having in his possession for sale and sold buffalo milk which on analysis was found to be adulterated with 18 per cent of added water.3. The plea of the accused was that the milk was personally drawn by him. and was pure, that after giving the milk to P.W. 1 Sundararaj he was engaged in tying kudams to the cycle and that he was not present when P.W. 1 filled the bottles and that P.W. 2 Narasimha Ayar, the Mahazar witness, was not also present there. P.W. 1 has clearly stated that the accused was selling milk in Venkatappa Chettiar Road, that he called him and asked him whether the milk was for sale and that he told him that it was for sale. T...
Ramaswami Pathar Vs. Jayankondam Sri Kulumalairatnaswami Devastanam by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ60
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is directed against the judgment of Venkatadri, J. arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for eviction of the appellant after removing the superstructure standing on the property and for arrears of rent. The appellant had, presumably with the permission of the respondent, put up a superstructure on the land which forms the subject-matter of dispute in this case. While the superstructure was in existence, the appellant obtained a lease from the respondent, the owner of the site, for a period of five years. Under the terms of the lease deed, the appellant agreed to surrender possession of the land after the period of the lease and during the interim period, not to sell or otherwise alienate the superstructure without the permission of the landlord. After the termination of the lease, the respondent instituted a suit for recovery of vacant possession of the land and for arrears of rent. The land is situate in the village of Jayankon...
Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Thandava Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ370; (1963)IMLJ10
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The statement of a person recorded under Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used to contradict that person under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act when he is called as a defence witness. The proviso to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked only in the case of prosecution witnesses and not in the case of defence witnesses. The order of the lower Court is correct. The criminal revision petition is therefore dismissed....
T. Panchavarnathammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: [1972]86ITR527(Mad); (1963)IMLJ109
Jagadisan, J.1. An important question of law involving the interpretation of Section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act is raised before us in this reference application.2. The assessee is the sole proprietrix of a business in lucifer matches run under the name and style of 'Gem Match Works' at Sivakasi. For the year ended 29th June, 1947, the previous year in respect of the assessment year 1948-49, she submitted her return of income declaring that the income was Rs. 11,143. The Additional Income-tax Officer, Virudhunagar, completed the assessment on 17th March, 1953, and determined the total income of the assessee as Rs. 25,129. On appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, this assessment was set aside on 11th July, 1955, The Income-tax Officer was directed by the appellate authority to make a fresh enquiry regarding the real ownership of the match business, whether it belonged to her or to her husband, and to make a further assessment. The Income-tax O...
P.V. Mohamed Ghouse, Proprietor, Wahit Motor Service Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ190
Jagadisan, J.1. The question of law that is raised in this reference under the Indian Income-tax Act is fairly simple, though judicial opinion in the matter is conflicting.2. The assessee, who is an individual, is carrying on business as a bus operator. He acquired shares, of the value of Rs. 65,000, of a Limited Company called Southern Transport Ltd., Kilakarai, during the year ended 30th June, 1956. He also lent money during that year to the same Company to the tune of about Rs. 35,552. He borrowed in the course of that year, from various persons, in all, a sum of Rs. 2,15,154. It is not in dispute that a portion of this borrowing was utilised for the purchase of the shares of the Southern Transport Ltd. For the assessment year 1957-58, relevant to the previous year ended on 30th June, 1956, he claimed deduction, in the computation of his business income, of a sum of Rs. 21,048, representing interest paid by him on the total borrowing of Rs. 2,15,154. The Income-tax Officer, who deal...
S. P. Doraiswami Chettiar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR565(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, refused registration of a firm called S. P. Doraiswami Chettiar and Sons, carrying on business at Panruti, South Arcot District. The alleged partners of this firm went up on appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, C. Range, who differed from the Income-tax Officer and held that the firm was registrable. The department preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and succeeded in having the order of the Income-tax Officer restored. On an application made by the alleged firm under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this court :'Whether the firm is registrable under section 26A for the assessment year 1957-58 ?'The simple undisputed facts are as follows : S. P. Doraiswami Chettiar and his sons, Ramaswami, Shanmugham and Arumugham, were members of a Hindu undivided family. The family was carrying on business in arecanuts at Panruti, South Arcot District. The fathe...
P. Vs. Mohamed Ghouse V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR127(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question of law that is raised in this reference under the Indian Income-tax Act is fairly simple, though judicial opinion in the matter is conflicting.The assessee, who is an individual, is carrying on business as a bus operator. He acquired shares of the value of Rs. 65,000 of a limited company called Southern Transports Ltd., Kilakarai, during the year ended 30th June, 1956. He also lent money during that year to the same company to the tune of about Rs. 35,552. He borrowed was utilised for the purchase of the shares of the Southern Transports Ltd. For the assessment year 1957-58, relevant to the previous year ended on 30th June, 1956, he claimed deduction, in the computation of his business income, of a sum of Rs. 21,048, representing interest paid by him on the total borrowing of Rs. 2,15,154. The Income-tax Officer, who dealt with his assessment, estimated the interest relating to the borrowed amount utilised for the purchase of shares at Rs. 7500 and disallowe...
B. Abdul Qadir Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR364(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The year of assessment in question is 1947-48, the account year relevant thereto ending with the 31st of March, 1947. During the years preceding, the assessee has been carrying on a particular canteen business. The business came to an end in April, 1946, during the 'previous year'. The outstandings relating to this canteen business were being realised during the year of account and in November, 1946, the assessee started a new business in the name and style of 'British and Eastern Engineering Company'. Till the end of the accounting year, that is, March 31, 1947, this company was mainly concerned in setting itself up. No actual business was done, expenses only being incurred in connection with entering into negotiations for import of machinery and tools from abroad. Up to the end of the accounting year, there was a loss of Rs. 9,532 which has been accepted by the department.In the account books of this business, however, certain credit entries purporting to be borrowals...
S.T. Somasundaram Pillai (Firm) Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC170(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in textiles. They were assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1957-58 on a net turnover of Rs. 7,69,000. They preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal but failed.2. One of the contentions urged before the Tribunal was that the department failed to grant relief to the assessees under certain Government orders which we will refer to later. They claimed immunity from levy of additional tax under Section 3(2) in respect of certain sales proved to have been effected by them as first dealers. According to them they have not collected tax at the additional rate on such sales from their purchasers. But the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that they had collected the tax on the sales of fine and superfine cloth either as a separate charge of 'contingent liability' or by inclusion in the sale price. The G. O. relied upon by the assessees for exemption from additi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »