Chennai Court November 1963 Judgments
M. Ct. Muthiah Vs. the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ279
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to a penalty imposed on an accounting party under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the history of the levy of the duty and of the payment made towards it. On the death of the father of the accounting party the ease was assessed to duty and a sum of Rs. 1,29.749-54 was found due after credit being given to a payment of a small sum. This the accounting party was directed to pay before 10th January, 1959. A substantial portion of the amount, viz., Rs. 1,10,965-31 was paid within the time permitted. The accounting party then approached the authority for the grant of time for the payment of the balance. That authority granted time till 5th March, 1959.2. It will be apparent from the order granting time that the accounting party was entitled to pay the balance before the close of the day on 5th February 1959, till which dat...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar (Died) Karaikudi and anr. Vs. the Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad68; [1964]54ITR151(Mad)
1. The question referred to us is -Whether on the facts of this case any presumption as to the receipt of profits can be raised and, if it can, whether the presumption has not been rebutted.2. The facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows : The assessee carries on a business in Rangoon; and in Ipoh he is the sole proprietor of a business, which at the material times it is alleged by the assessee earned no profit at all, and he is also a partner in another money-lending business with other persons which did result in a profit at the material times. In 1926 sums of money amounting to Rs. 4,10,000 were sent from Ipoh to Rangoon to the petitioner there, the last sum being a sum received in December, 1926. In the Rangoon books there is a ledger account for Ipoh and in Ipoh there is a ledger account for Rangoon and money passing, from one place to the other is set out in the respective ledger accounts. The Income-tax authorities assessed that sum of Rs. 4,10,000 rece...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanaraghavan and anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hindu Religious and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad426
Srinivasan, J.1. One Rajabathar Mudaliar was previously the hereditary trustee of Sri Agastheeswarar and Sri prasarnnavenkatesaperumal temples. His father had been the hereditary trustee before him. On certain charges framed against him, this Rajabathar Mudaliar was dismissed. After his dismissal his wife Valli Animal sought to be appointed as the hereditary trustee as the next in line of succession, and as her claims were not recognised, she moved this Court in Writ Petition No.' 855 of 1958. This Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the commissioner to recognise Valli Animal as the trustee in place of her husband Rajabathar. This Valli Ammal assumed office on 13-12-1960. The commissioner thereafter purported to appoint an executive officer. One was so appointed on 15-'3 1961. The appointment of the executive officer was questioned by a writ petition before this Court. But, finally, it appears that the proceeding for the appointment of an executive officer was dropped. In April 1...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gopalakrishna Iyengar Vs. P. Sirrengammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ278
ORDERG.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in an unregistered plaint on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of properties mentioned in Schedules I and II of the plaint and for accounting. It appears that the properties originally belonged to one Krishna Ayyangar. He had a son by name Anantakrishna Iyyangar who, however, predeceased his father. The first defendant in the suit is the widow of this Anantakrishna Ayyangar and the plaintiff' is their only son. It is alleged that there was a partition between the mother and the son in and by which the mother got a life estate in respect of the First Schedule properties. The Second Schedule house was purchased by the first defendant from and out of the income of the properties and the cash assets in her hands. On a check-slip placed before the Court below by the Court-fee Examiner, the learned Subordinate Judge took the view that the matter was governed by Section 40 of the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawandas Kalachand Kripalani Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ354
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The shop and the residence of the petitioner were searched by the Customs Preventive staff on 22nd August, 1959. The search of the shop yielded nothing. From the house twenty old gold coins and two radio sets, one of which was a transistor set, were seized. In the view that the gold coins were of foreign origin, as also the radios, action under the Sea Customs Act was taken. The explanation of the petitioner was that these gold coins represented wedding presents received by his wife in 1937 and that some of the coins belonged to his sister as well. He gave some explanation with regard to the radio set which, according to him, had been purchased in 1957. The transistor set, he claimed, had been purchased from an unknown person on the previous day.2. The explanation was accepted in so far as the gold coins were concerned. The Collector of Central Excise, the adjudicating authority, observed in this regard:I feel that in the absence of any evidence to substantiate...
Tag this Judgment!Rasi Goundar Vs. Muthu Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ440
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The petitioner herein seeks to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 5 of 1962 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari. The circumstances under which the above proceedings were taken may be shortly stated.2. In M.C. No. 42 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Namakkal, proceedings had been taken under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on a report that there was likelihood of a breach of peace between the petitioner and the respondents and in the order passed therein on a finding given by the District Munsif, Sankari, under Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner who is a lessee under a registered lease deed was found to be in possession of the property so that the respondents were directed not to disturb his possession but to establish their title in a Court of Civil Law. It is conceded before me that thereafter a suit was filed by the respondents to establish their right and that suit is still pending. It is f...
Tag this Judgment!Ayeeshee Bivi Vs. K.S.A. Shaik Mohamed Alim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad309
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff is against the concurring judgments of the courts below. She sued for a declaration against the defendants, of whom the first was her son who had pendent lite died, and the others were the Union of India, and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, that a deed of gift executed by her on 4-8-1943, was not valid but void. There is no dispute that she owned the property which was the subject-matter of the gift. The ground on which she wanted the declaration was that the gift was subject to a stipulation and (sic) she was entitled to revoke it as her son the donee failed to fulfil the stipulation. She also asserted that the gift was not completed by delivery.The courts below found against the plaintiff on both the points. There was a further point in the plaint that, weak as she was in age and mind, she was made to execute the gift in favour of her son. But this was not decided by the lower appellate court, and on verification it is fo...
Tag this Judgment!Ayeesha Beevi Vs. K.S.A. Shaik Mohamed Alim Sahib and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ276
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiff is against the concurring judgments of the Courts below. She sued for a declaration against the defendants, of whom the first who was her son had pendente lite died and the others were the Union of India and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property, that a deed of gift executed by her on 4th August, 1943, was not valid but void. There is no dispute that she owned the property which was the subject-matter of the gift. The ground on which she wanted the declaration was that the gift was subject to a stipulation and that she was entitled to revoke it as her son, the donee, failed to fulfil the stipulation. She also asserted that the gift was not completed by delivery. The Courts below found against the plaintiff on both the points. There was a further point in the plaint that, weak as she was in age and mind, she was made to execute the gift in favour of her son. But this was not decided by the lower appellate Court, and on verificat...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.K. Subbaraya Chettiar Vs. Abirami Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad157
(1) This second appeal by the second defendant has to be allowed as the question raised by him is concluded by authority in his favour. That defendant executed a promissory not on 15-2-1954, for a sum of Rs 6000 in favour of the first defendant. On 14-2-1957, the plaintiff, who is the first respondent in this court, sued for a declaration that she was the beneficial owner of the promissory note and for a decree for the amount covered by the promissory note against both the defendants. The suit was resisted by the second defendant on the ground that such a suit did not lie. The trial court accepted that defence and dismissed the suit in so far as it related to the second defendant. The trial court, however, granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that she was the beneficial owner of the promissory note. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit against the second defendant, affirmed the decla...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Rajagopal Vs. Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad103
(1) This writ appeal is preferred against the order of Jagadisan, refusing to issue writ of certiorari calling for and quashing the memorandum dated 23-4-1962 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, C. I. D. Madras, against the appellant.(2) The appellant is a sub inspector of Police in the Madras Police service. He was investigating Crime No. 231 of 1961 Ponneri police, an offence under S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act and Fertilisers Act. It is alleged that he examined at Minjur two witnesses A. S. Ramaswami Chetti and Venkatesh Chetti and ascertained that Ramaswami Chetti purchased 40 bags of Ammonium Sulphate at "black market" rate from Nagabhushanam and Swaminathan, who were the accused in that case. It is the case of the department that the appellant used the circumstance of purchase of Ammonium Sulphate at black market rate for threatening Rangaswami Chetti and Venkatesh with arrest and by that means obtained from Ramaswami Chetti as bribe a sum of Rs. 1000 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »