Chennai Court September 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.
G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR313(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee, Veerappa Pillai, was running a bus service. He had an account with the Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore. The bank provided him with overdraft facilities as well. When the bank went into liquidation in 1947, the official liquidators made a claim against the assessee for a sum of Rs. 2,37,600 as the amount appearing in the books of the bank as a debit against the assessee. The assessee disputed the correctness of this amount, contending that there was an excess debit to the extent of one lakh of rupees. Proceedings were started by the official liquidators for recovery of the amount. Ultimately, the question was decided in favour of the assessee. During those proceedings, the assessee incurred certain legal expenses which he claimed were allowable in his assessments for the relevant assessment years 1949-50 to 1952-53. It may be mentioned that before the department and the Tribunal a claim was also made in respect of legal expenses connected with a criminal prosecu...
P.S. Machado and ors. Vs. K. Venkatarama Gopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad231; (1963)IMLJ183
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent from the judgment of Anantanarayanan j. in A. S. No. 606 of 1956 by which the learned Judge affirmed the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagarcoil directing the appellant herein in a suit filed by the respondent to refund the excess collections of transport charges made by him. The respondent had entered into a contract with the Cochin Government, a contract under which time was the essence, to deliver a large quantity of salt at Allepey and Cochin. The respondent had brought up the salt to be delivered at the place called Manakudi. Transport from that place to the two places of delivery had to be made by means of sailing vessels popularly known as country crafts through waterways connecting the places. Wartime needs hall brought about scarcity of shipping space. Further, there was also need for regulating the charges levied by the ship and country craft owners. With a view to facilitate the tr...
S.R. Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. M. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad356
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Srinivasan, J. declining to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which granted a variation of the two stage carriage permits held by the first respondent. The questions that fall for determination in this appeal are:(i) Whether pending a revision petition Under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of the Regional Transport authority, refusing to grant variation if the applicant dies, his or her legal representatives can pursue the revision petition; and (ii) whether it will be open to the Transport Authorities to grant variation of a permit so as to enable the operator to cut the route prescribed in the original permit, and to proceed to a different destination abandoning the one fixed under the permit. Srinivasan, J. has answered both the questions in the affirmative.2. The facts which have led up to this appea...
In Re: Ramiah thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ66
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Ramaiah Thevar has been convicted under Section 494, Indian Penal Code read with Section 17 of Act XXV of 1955 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 200 and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the Courts below have accepted the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses and found that the complainant (P.W. 1) got divorced from her first husband P.W. 5 and married the petitioner and that during the subsistence of the said marriage, the petitioner married his cousin Pakkiammal. There is no ground to differ from the said finding.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, contended that under Hindu Law Saptapadi is an essential ceremony for a valid marriage and that there is no proof in this case that there was Saptapadi either for the marriage of P.W. I with the petitioner or for the subsequent marriage of the petitioner with Pakkiammal. It is clear from Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act...
C. R. Corera and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR188(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred to us is, 'whether the sum of Rs. 30,000 out of the total outlay of Rs. 31,818 on the boat No. 95 is also allowable as current repairs within the meaning of section 10(2) (v) ?'The assessee is a registered firm which owns and plies cargo boats and carried out lighterage work within the Tuticorin harbour. Of the seven boats owned by the assessee, boat No. 95 was constructed in or about 1931. On the 8th April, 1953, it was drydocked and certain repairs which were intended to be carried out were not effected by the close of that year. The repair of the boat was undertaken in January, 1954. In the account year, that is, the calendar year 1954, a total sum of Rs. 31,817-13-5 was claimed to have been spent upon the repairs and in the assessment of the assessment year 1955-56, the assessee claimed this amount as a revenue expense allowable towards current repairs under section 10(2) (v) of the Act in the computation of its business income. The Income-tax ...
Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR156(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question that is referred to this court under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is as follows :'Whether the expenses of Rs. 20,035 incurred in the assessment year 1949-50 and Rs. 5912 (relating to the assessment year 1950-51) being the cost paid to the Government as directed by the Privy Council were expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business and allowable as deductions.'The assessee is a limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business in cotton spinning and weaving at Madurai. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1949-50 it claimed as deduction in the computation of its business profits the sum of Rs. 20,035 representing legal expenses incurred by it in connection with a litigation to the details of which we shall refer a little later. In the assessment year 1950-51, relevant to the previous year ending on March 31, 1950, it claimed as deduction the sum of Rs. 5,912 being the costs paid to the Gover...
First Additional Income-tax Officer Vs. R. Shanmugha Rajeswara Sethupa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad190; [1963]48ITR647(Mad); (1963)2MLJ395
Srinivasan, J. 1. These are applications by the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, for grant of certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution. The judgment of this Court from which appeals are sought to be filed in the Supreme Court was rendered in a series of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution. Broadly stated, two persons who were landholders were under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act dispossessed of their estates and compensation was paid to them in lieu of such dispossession. In terms of the Act, certain further payments referred to as interim, payments were also made to them. The department took proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act and sought to bring these interim payments to assessment.One of the writ applications related to a case where such an assessment had in fact been made. In the others, the matter stood at the stage of notices under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act to those persons. It was in these ci...
S. Vaidayanatha Iyer and anr. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad24
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The appellants in the above appeals are employees under the Life Insurance Corporation of India and they have appealed from the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. rejecting their applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent (Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Zonal Manager) to reinstate them to the same office with all rights and privileges attached thereto respectively held by them in the various insurance units before their integration into the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The appellants claim that they had been appointed by the various business insurance companies prior to their integration with the Insurance Corporation of India, as administrative and supervisory officers but that after the Corporation came into being they were demoted to the position of field officers contrary to the statutory guarantee contained in Section 11(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act ...
J.D. Nichani and anr. Vs. State of Madras Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad30; (1963)IMLJ202
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The petitioners in these two petitions are carrying on business as money-lenders in the city of Madras and Salem respectively and they have approached this Court by means of these two petitions under Article 228 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ to direct the State of Madras to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Madras Money Lenders Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1957) hereafter to be referred to as the Act. In the affidavits filed in support of the petitions the Constitutional validity of the Act and in particular of Sections 2(6) to (8), 4(3), 10 and 14 of the Act have been challenged, the contention being that they contravene either or both the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. The Act came into force on 16-10-1959 and it forms part of a series of legislative measures enacted by the State legislature to control and regulate the profession of money lending. Th...
M. Andiappan Vs. Chockalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ302
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The landholder of Sannalagudi village in Ramanathapuram District filed certain applications, out of which these petitions are concerned with only nine, under Section 3-A (2)(a) of the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Amendment Act, 1956 (Madras Act XXIX of 1956), before the second respondent for a decision on the question whether the relative lands were ryoti in character. It may be remembered that originally under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Act XXX of 1947), there was no provision for a forum or power to determine that question. In order to cover this lacuna, Madras Act XXIX of 1956 was enacted providing for a forum and the procedure for determining the nature of the land in an estate within the meaning of Madras Act XXX of 1947 for purposes of determination of the reduced rent applicable to particular holdings. When these applications were taken up on 16th February, 1959, on the ground of default of appearance of the petitioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »