Chennai Court January 1963 Judgments
V. Maruthavanan Vs. M. Balasubramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad292; (1963)IMLJ295
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. By its order dated 24-5-1960 the Tribunal set aside the grant of a single permit to the petitioner and granted the same to the first respondent. The route is Annamalainagar to Kothamchari, which is a short route. This petition is to quash the Tribunal's order.2. The only point argued by Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam for the petitioner is that the first respondent having applied for a permit as a firm but during the pendency of its appeal before the Tribunal, the firm having been dissolved by one of the two partners going out of it, the appeal became infructuous.3. The argument so addressed is based on the assumption that the application was by a firm. Though it does not appear to have been noticed by either the Regional Transport Authority or the Tribunal and the parties proceeded on the footing that the application was by the firm Balasubramaniam and Co. on the actual verification of the original application it is found that the application was by M. Balasubramaniam,...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Finance Private Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad128
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of mandamus may issue to the Board of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Revenue authority of the State of Madras, to make a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act.2. The petitioners are financiers. They entered into an arrangement with the Punjab National Bank for advance of cash credit to a limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. A printed form of agreement was entered into and the agreement bore stamps to the value of only Rs. 1-8-0. As required by the Companies Act, the bank forwarded the agreement to the Registrar of Companies, and the Registrar forwarded it to the Collector of Madras for being validated under the Stamp Act. The Collector, in the exercise of his powers under the Stamp Act, impoundded the document and held that a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 4048-50 was payable. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 100. The petitioners moved the Collector for revising the order, contending that the d...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Transport, Coimbatore (P) Ltd. Vs. Coimbatore Motor Transpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad385
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The Tribunal set aside the permit granted to the petitioner on the route Coimbatore Railway Station to Saravanampatti, a town route, in Coimbatore town, and granted the permit to the first respondent. The Regional Transport authority proceeded upon the looting that the marking system under G O. Ms. No. 2263 Home dated 9-8-1958 should not be applied but the selection should be made on a different criterion, namely, that the person with the smallest number of buses should have the first preference. It was on that basis the petitioner was preferred by the Regional Transport authority, as the petitioner had six permits, while the first respondent had nine permits. The Tribunal considered that this was a wrong principle to be applied and followed the marking system. When the Tribunal found that the petitioner as well as the first respondent obtained equal marks, two considerations weighed with it in favour of the first respondent. One of them was that the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and Others Vs. Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR809(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question of law, which is common in all the cases, that arises for decision in this batch of applications under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act is :'Whether wealth-tax paid by a company is an allowable expenditure in the computation of its business income under the Indian Income-tax Act ?'We shall now state the facts in each case and set out the question referred :T.C. No. 91/1961. - The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of purchase and sale of electrical energy. It was assessed to wealth-tax under the Wealth-tax Act on March 31, 1959, and the tax of Rs. 9,594 was levied. This sum was claimed as a deduction by the assessee from its business income in respect of the assessment year 1959-60. The claim was negatived by the department as well as by the Tribunal. The question that is referred is :'Whether the sum of Rs. 9,594 representing the wealth-tax paid by the assessee was an allowable expenditure under the Income-tax Act ?'T.C. No. 92...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Manickavasagam Alias Rajamanickam Vs. G. Muthuveeraswami Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad362; (1963)2MLJ145
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The substantial question that arises for determination in this second appeal relates to limitation, T. S. No. 1194/2 in the Madurai town, an area of about 76 cents, was acquired by the Government for the benefit of the municipality at Madurai for providing house-sites for Harijans. It is now found by both the courts below,-- a finding which has not been challenged before us--that the appellant was entitled to four cents on the southern portion of the property acquired. The first respondent, claiming that he was entitled to the entire 76 cents, applies for and obtained the compensation amount from the Land Acquisition authorities. The award of the Land Acquisition Offcer is dated 10-2-1953. The payment of the amount was made on the following day. The appellant after coming to know that the amount due to him by way of compensation in respect of four cents, to which he. had title, was paid to the first respondent, issued a notice to the Government purporting to do...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thiagarajan Chettiar Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation thr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad361; [1963(7)FLR169]; (1963)IILLJ207Mad; (1963)2MLJ77
S. Ramchandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by an employer under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, against an order passed by the Employees Insurance court (District Judge, Madurai) directing him to pay contribution in respect of certain persons. The appellant owns a textile mill in Madural and the employees concerned in the case are gardeners, (sic) workers, office attender, watchmen etc. The substantial question before the lower Court was whether these persons were employees within the meaning of the Employees State Insurance Act, so as to oblige the employer to contribute for their provident fund. That question which has been answered by the lower Court against the appellant depends upon the construction of the term 'employee' on Section 2(9) of the Act, which runs thus :'Employee means any person employed for wages it or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment to which this Act applies and (i) who is directly employed by the principal em...
Tag this Judgment!Michael Villavarayar and Anr. Vs. Workmen, represented by Secy. Boatme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad351; (1963)IILLJ203Mad
Ahantanarayanan, J.W. A. 127/61 1. This appeal raises a question of some degree of interest with reference to the tests to be applied in determining whether a paid employee is a 'workman' within the scope of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, where a contention arises that, by reason of the duties performed by that employee and the powers vested in him, he constitutes an exception under Section 2(s)(iv). The facts are that a certain Michael Villavarayar, a boat-owner of Tuticorin, dismissed from his employment one Michael Fernando, a person designated as a 'Tindal' with supervisory powers over the plying of particular boats. The Boatman's union at Tuticorin took up the cause of this dismissed employee; and in G. O. Ms. No. 3375 (Lab) dated 5-10-1959 the Government referred this matter as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court at Madurai, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (Act XIV of 1947). The Management (Michaei Villavarayar, the writ petitioner and the appe...
Tag this Judgment!United India Life Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR965(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The following questions have been referred to this court under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act :'1. Whether the assessment on the assessee computing the profit under rule 2(a) in respect of the Indian branch of the Winterthur Life Assurance Company Ltd. and adopting the surplus under rule 2(b) in respect of its own business in the single assessment raised for that year is valid ?2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 43,588 under section 4(3) (xii) of the Income-tax Act in each of the aforesaid assessment ?'The assessee, the United Life Assurance Company Ltd., was formerly carrying on life insurance business. The Life Insurance Corporation of India has taken over that business and the assessee is now represented by the Corporation. A Swiss company called Winterthur Swiss Life Insurance Company was carrying on life business in India through its agents, Messrs. Volkart Brothers. The assessee entered into an agreement with the Swiss company on Octob...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Manicka Mudaliar Vs. V.M. Thangavelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad35
Jagadisan, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 35 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, granting a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of a quarter share in favour of the plaintiff regarding plaint A and B schedule properties. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant. It will be convenient to refer to the appellant as the first defendant and to the first respondent as the plaintiff in this judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 to this appeal were defendants 2 and 3 in the suit.2. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, by his first wife. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant by his second wife, Samppoornam, who is not a party to the suit. The parties are hereditarily rich and have been trading in yarn. They are Sengunthar-Mudaliars by caste governed by the Hindu Mitakshara law. The suit was one for partition in which the plaintiff claimed one-fourth share in the plaint A and B and C schedule properties; A s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dandapani Vs. the Additional Gift Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad419; (1963)1MLJ192
Jagadisan, J.1. The question raised is whether the Gift Tax Act, 1958 (Act XVIII of 1958) enacted by the Parliament is within its legislative competence in so far as the Act purports to levy a tax on gifts ofagricultural lands.2. The petitioner executed a settlement deed on 8th April 1957 in favour of his niece, Manonmani Ammal, and thereby gifted an extent of 20 acres 28 cents of agricultural lands. He also made a gift under an instrument dated 7th April 1957 of an extent of 114 acres 38 cents of agricultural lands in favour of his two sisters, Gajalakshmi and Savithri. The Gift Tax Officer, Cuddalore, called upon the petitioner by notice dated 4th December 1958, to furnish a return in the prescribed form of all gifts made by him for the year ending 31st March 1958. The Officer exercised his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner submitted a return and disclosed the two settlement deeds referred to above. By order dated 7th April 1960, the officer ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »