Chennai Court March 1963 Judgments
O. Mohamed Yusuf Levai Saheb Vs. S. Hajee Mohammed HussaIn Rowther (Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad1
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal has been directed to be posted before this Full Bench on account of some divergence of judicial opinion amongst the various High Courts in India ok the principal question involved in it. There has also been no uniformity of view in the several cases that have come up before this Court on the same matter.2. The questions that fall for determination in this appeal can be formulated thus:1. Whether an award made on a reference out of Court, and, which has not been filed into Court in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 can be pleaded as a defence to a suit instituted by a party thereto on the basis of the original cause of action.)2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether such an award if performed by one of the parties, can afford a good defence to an action on the original cause 'of action, by the other party;3. Whether such an unfiled award if later on accepted by the parties thereto, can af...
Tag this Judgment!N. K. R. Narayanaswamy Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR103(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byJAGADISAN J. - This is a revision petition under section 54(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, calling in question the order of the commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, calling in question the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Officer in regard to the agricultural income of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the inclusion of the income of his two wives arising out of lands settled by him upon them in his total agricultural income. The objection was overruled by the department on the ground that the case fell within section 9, sub-section (2), clause (a), sub-clause (iii). The point raised before us is whether this view of the department is correct.The petitioner has married two wives, Hamsavalli and Sarojini. He is however childless. He executed a registered settlement deed dated January 26, 1956, in and by which he settled certain properties upon his first wife and certain other propert...
Tag this Judgment!Kaka Mohamed Ghouse Sahib and Co. Vs. United Commercial Syndicate and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1963
Reported in: [1963]49ITR824(Mad)
RAMAMURTI J. - The appellant herein filed an application, Application No. 453 of 1959 in C. S. Nos. 101 and 420 of 1950, on the original side of this court for payment out of a sum of Rs. 33,500 from out of the sale proceeds of certain items of properties in respect of which a security bond had been executed in I. P. Nos. 75 of 1951 and 79 of 1952, High Court, Madras. That application was dismissed by Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) on the objections raised on behalf of the Tahsildar of Gudiyattam who claimed that the sale proceeds in deposit in court should be paid over to him in preference to the applicant on the ground that large arrears of income-tax are due to the Government from kaka Mohammed Ismail Sahib, the owner of the properties aforesaid.The relevant facts relating to the controversy may be briefly stated. Kaka Mohamed Ismail Sahib, Jalal Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib and Roshan Abdul Ahmed, who were the partners of Roshan N. H. A. Karim Ommer and Co., were sought to be adjudg...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kanthammal Vs. D.S. Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad412; (1963)1MLJ168
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, which is directed against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J. arises out of proceedings instituted by the appellant under Section. 95, C. P. Code, for compensation against the respondent, for obtaining an order for attachment before judgment on insufficient grounds. The judgment of the learned Judge is reported in Kanthammal v. Rajalakshmi, : AIR1961Mad352 . The facts giving rise to the appeal are these :2. The appellant Kinthammal and another person Kuppuswami Chetti borrowed certain money from one Ispahani in the year 1947 and executed a promissory note in respect of that liability. Ispahani assigned the promissory note to Raja-lakshmi, the respondent herein hut it is now round that it was Kanthammal's money that was utilised for obtaining the assignment in her favour and the latter was in effect a benamidar for Kanthammal. Evidently, Kanthammal wanted not to have the promissory note discharged by payment and with a view to enforce the same aga...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. S. Krishnaswami Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC598(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The short question that is raised in this revision petition is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of confiscation of certain goods in the instant case is an order which comes within the scope of Section 31 enabling the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. The officer in charge of the check post found a lorry conveying 291 tins of cocoanut oil on 13th October, 1960. Enquiries revealed that the consignment was for the assessee. Thereafter, further enquiries were held, which resulted in showing that the assessee had been receiving similar consignments of about 2,000 tins in all. On the basis of this, the officer, who is also the assessing authority, estimated the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 1,25,000 and odd. He levied a tax of about Rs. 3,000, and imposed a penalty in addition. The order that he passed was in these terms :-I hereby give Sri S. Krishnaswami Chettiar of Koolanaickenpatty the option to pay a ta...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Chetty Vs. M.K.R. Shanmuga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1963
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ419
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Second Appeal arises from the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, dismissing the application of the appellant for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 467 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. The appellant is a pawn-broker and the respondent is a customer of his. The latter-had pledged with him certain gold jewels for obtaining an advance, which it is now said to come to about Rs. 2,800. Independently of that transaction, the appellant had advanced moneys to the respondent under a promissory note. In respect of that latter claim a suit in execution of decree in which this appeal arises, was filed for recovery of the amount due. In execution of the decree, the appellant applied for sale of the jewels in his possession, subject to his rights as a pledgee. The application was filed under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil Procedure Code. The executing Court as; well as the learned District Judge on appeal have held that the jewel...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramasamy Asari Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, Madurai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR57(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of assessment of the Second Income-tax Officer, Madurai, under the Indian Income-tax Act. The petitioner, who was the assessee, objected to the jurisdiction of the officer, but failed. The officer passed the order of assessment on March 19, 1962. The assessee prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash that order stating that the officer had, in the circumstances of the case, no power or jurisdiction to pass the order.It is not known whether the petitioner (assessee) has filed an appeal against the order of the officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which he is entitled to do, under the provisions of the Act. It cannot of course be contended by the petitioner that he has no remedy for canvassing the correctness or the validity of the order of assessment except by approaching this court under article 226 of the Constitution. We strongly deprecate the practice of assessees filing writ petitions against ord...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad51; (1963)IILLJ58Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This writ appeal is instituted by the management of the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, Pasumalai, from the judgment of Karnachanara Iyer J. (as he then was ) in w.p. No. 482 of 1959, before the learned Judge. Since the facts are very simple, and not in dispute for the most part, it is sufficient for us to be quite brief. The contesting res. pendent (S. M. Subrarnaniam Chettiar) was working as a clerk in the Time Keeper's office of the Mills. He was on leave, which expired on 3rd February 1958. But without rejoining duty, he absented himself without leave, any without taking steps to obtain the sanction of the management, for a period of nearly two months thereafter till. 13-4-1958.2. In its relationship to employees, in matters of discipline, the management is governed by certain Standing Orders framed for mill operatives. Under Section 18(f) of these Standing Orders,'habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than ten consecutive days' constitut...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. C. Abdul Shukoor S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC670(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the State wherein the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that beedi tobacco was not raw tobacco within the meaning of Section 5(viii) is attacked as erroneous. The respondents are beedi manufacturers. They purchased beedi tobacco from sellers at Bombay and they manufactured beedis therewith. under Section 5(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, raw tobacco, whether cured or uncured, is liable to tax at the point of first purchase effected in the State of Madras. under Section 5(vii) the sale of manufactured products, such as cigars, cheroots, beedis, snuff, chewing tobacco or 'any other product manufactured from tobacco' is liable to tax at the point of first sale effected in the State of Madras. There is a proviso to Section 5(viii) which confers upon the dealer who has been taxed under Section 5(vii) a rebate to the extent to which he has also been taxed under Section 5(viii) on the raw tobacco. The contenti...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sp. Kt. Kalayappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1963
Reported in: [1964]51ITR51(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - One Kadiresan Chettiar and another Arunachalam Chettiar were partners in a money-lending business which they carried on at Ceylon. Kadiresan Chettiar died on 29th May, 1935, and the partnership became dissolved. In the course of that money-lending business, an estate called Girivalai Estate of an extent of about 276 acres was purchased and it is not in dispute that this estate was a stock-in-trade of the money-lending business at the time of the acquisition. The estate was purchased some time in the year 1931 for a sum of Rs. 1,30,180. At the time of Kadiresan Chettiars death his only son, the assessee now before us was a minor aged about 9 years. On dissolution of the firm, this estate was allotted to the share of the assessee. He attained age in March, 1947 and he had been assessed to tax on his income. In the assessment proceedings it was not disputed that the properties acquired by the partnership represented stock-in-trade of the business. In the accounting year end...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »