Chennai Court May 1963 Judgments
Barjor Hoshangji Vakil and ors. Vs. the Mettur Chemical and Industrial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ325
S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of some importance and difficulty. The appellants who are closely related, the first four among them being members of one family and the fifth, the husband of the fourth appellant, held severally and jointly 150 preference shares in the Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., the respondent herein, a public limited company having a share capital of Rupees one crore divided into '(a) 20,000 six per cent, income-tax free.... cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each, but with no further rights in the participation of the profits of the company, and (b) 8,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each '. The company carries on business in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and their by-products. Its year of accounting is the financial year. From the years 1950-51 to 1956-57, the profits made by the company stood wiped out in the accounts by reason of setting them off against the depreciation allowable under the Indian I...
Tag this Judgment!Barjor Hoshangji Vakil and Others Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industrial C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR128(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - This second appeal raises a question of some importance and difficulty. The appellants who are closely related, the first four among them being members of one family and the fifth, the husband of the fourth appellant, held severally and jointly 150 preference shares in the Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., the respondent herein, a public limited company having a share capital of Rs. one crore divided into '(a) 20,000 six per cent. income-tax free..... cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each, but with no further rights in the participation of the profits of the company, and (b) 8,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each'. The company carries on business in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and their by-products. Its year of accounting is the financial year. For the years 150-51 to 1956-57, the profit made by the company stood wiped out in the accounts by reason of setting them off against the depreciation allowable under the Indian Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manickam Vs. Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad375; (1963)IILLJ62Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition has to be allowed and the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service has to be quashed on a short ground, namely, that there is a serious defect in the charge. After setting out the charge, the memo of charge proceeded as follows:'Show cause why you1 should not be dismissed from the force or otherwise punished for the above gross indisciplinary conduct.'Then followed the statement that it was proposed to hold an oral enquiry on the charge. This method of framing a charge is not in consonance with Article 311. At the stage of the charge, no question of punishment can arise. The fact that the proposed punishment is mentioned in the charge can only show that even before the charges were enquired into and a finding arrived at on the basis of the enquiry, the petitioner had been prejudged. On this short ground, as I said, the order of dismissal is Quashed.The petition is allowed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!P.A.R. Viswanathan and Company Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC702(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. In this revision the assessees-firm question the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal directing them to pay 2 per cent, sales tax on the disputed turnover of Rs. 97,294-16 for the assessment year 1959-60.2. The assessees are dealers carrying on business in gold, silver and jewels under the name and style of P. A. R. Viswanathan & Co., in Big Bazaar Street, Coimbatore. They returned a total turnover of Rs. 2,31,968-35 nP. and claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,921-63 nP. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore III, on checking the accounts found the turnover under jewels to be Rs. 1,35,631-76 nP. and under first sales of bullion to be Rs. 97,294-16 nP. During the enquiry the petitioners' authorised agent represented to the assessing authority that the bullion sold by the firm was a mixture of gold and copper. Thereupon the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the commodity sold was not 'bullion', that the assessees are not entitl...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jainulabdeen Sahib Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC413(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee is a dealer in snuff. In the assessment for the year 1955-56, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer accepted as exemptible a turnover of Rs. 4,38,068 on account of the inter-State sales and a further turnover of Rs. 1,17,107 as being sales of snuff at the Calcutta branches of the assessee's business. At that stage, a claim put forward by the assessee that the excise duty paid by it on the purchase value of the tobacco should be deducted, was disallowed. This disallowance was made the subject-matter of an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer. The result of that appeal is not of any importance, as it does not bear upon the question in this tax revision case. On 10th March, 1962, the Board of Revenue, in the exercise of its powers Under Section 34 of the Act of 1959, issued a notice to the assessee. It took the view that the exemption in respect of inter-State sales granted for the period 1st April, 1955, to 6th September, 1955, was not correct and that thoug...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Surulivel Nadar and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC1005(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessees are dealers in cardamom. For the the year 1955-56, the assessee-firm returned a turnover of Rs. 12,02,723 and claimed an exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 10,70,425 stated to be purchases of cardamom made in the Travancore-Cochin State. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Theni, verified the purchase vouchers and the transport vouchers in detail and except for the purchase of one item covering a turnover of Rs. 4,119, he was satisfied that the purchases made outside the Madras State had been taken delivery of by the assessees at places outside the State. This was presumably established by the maintenance of proper vouchers for the transport of the purchased commodity from places outside the State to the assessees' place of business inside the State. He accordingly accepted the claim to exemption except in respect of the small turnover referred to. An assessment was made on that basis on 14th March, 1957.2. On the 20th December, 1960, after the comi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Kalliappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ368
ORDERS. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.1. The properties of a minor, a ward of Court were under the control of District Judge, Coimbatore. Under the Guardian and Wards Act a property guardian had been appointed. Under the directions of the Court, lease of the properties was granted year after year to the highest bidder at the auction. The petitioner was the successful bidder for the leasehold right for the period from 14th January, 1962, to the corresponding date in the year 1963. In the following year the property guardian wanted to lease out the property in accordance with the previous practice and accordingly in the auction that was held the respondent, the successful bidder became the lessee for a year. The latter applied to the Court for directions as to delivery of possession from the former lessee. In this, he was resisted on the ground that the former lessee had acquired rights under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The learned District Judge overruled t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ganesan Vs. Brahmayya and Co., Official Liquidators and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ405
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These appeals and the cross-objections arise out of an application (Application No. 2826 of 1950) filed under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1913, by the Official Liquidators of the Hanuman Bank, Ltd., Tanjore. No-less than 30 persons were impleaded as respondents to the petition, and the Official Liquidators sought to make them liable for various sums on account of misfeasance. Respondents 1 to 10 in the petition were the Directors. Respondents 11 to 29 were, according to them, officers of the Bank. The 30th Respondent was the Auditor. In all the appeals, unless otherwise stated, the parties will be referred to with reference-to their position as respondents in the application before the Company Judge.2. The Bank was started on 29th November, 1933 and it grew from small beginnings. to almost gigantic proportions. There were reckless advances without proper security, which eventually led to a crash of the Bank, in July, 1947. It was ordered to be wound up on ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Rm. Om. Sp. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR907(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee firm is a partnership carrying on money-lending business in India and at various places in the Federated Malay States. The father of the partners, who are all brother, died on March 9, 1943, and on his death, estate duty became payable to the Malayan Government. By an agreement entered into between the assessee firm and the Government of Malaya, the dues to the Government on this head were agreed to be paid in monthly instalments, with interest on the unpaid balances. During the year ended April 13, 1951, relevant to the assessment year 1951-52, a total debit of 12,719 dollars was made in respect of the interest payable on the balance of estate duty. This payment was claimed by the assessee firm as business expense relevant to the various branches in the Federated Malay States. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim and an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also failed. In the further appeal to the Tribunal, the claim was made as an intere...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›