Chennai Court January 1964 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.
In Re: Ayyavoo Accused
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad490; 1964CriLJ560
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. In my view, the revision petitioner, Ayyavoo, was very properly convicted upon the merits by the two courts below of the offences Under Sections 7 and 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 2(1)(a) and (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Indisputably, the sentence, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000, though apparently heavy, is the minimum, that has to be awarded under the law for a second commission of the offence, as is the case here.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges only two grounds. The first is that there was no 'sale' within the meaning of the Act, because the revision petitioner (Ayyavoo) is only a servant of an employer, and he was taking milk to a relative of his master, the milk not being intended for sale at all. The point has no substance. The evidence which has been accepted by both the courts below, is very clearly to the effect that the Food Inspector, P.W. 1, purchased this milk from the revision petiti...
In Re: Bhoopathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ280
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding involves a question of some interest with regard to the applicability ofSection 5 of the Madras Prohibition Act to the established facts of this case. As far as the evidence is concerned, we may take it as proved that Head Constable 981 (P.W. 1) stopped and searched the revision petitioner and recovered from his person a bottle (M.O. 1) containing 8 drams of denatured spirit mixed with water which according to the Head Constable (P.W. 1) had been rendered potable. P.W. 1 is corroborated ,by P.W. 2. Further, we have the report of the Analyst attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory to the effect that the liquid contained 37.7 per cent of proved spirit and that it was varnish upon which an attempt had been made as to render it potable by adding water and sodium chloride.2. Now, under Section 5 of the Act:Whoever renders or attempts to render fit for human consumption any spirit or preparation containing spirit whether manufactured...
N. Selvarajulu Chetty and Co. (India) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR29(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us is :'Whether the legal expenses of Rs. 3,900 and Rs. 6,480 were allowable under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ?'The facts leading to this question are these. One Selvarjulu Chetty was carrying on a stevedoring business in Mardras. He died in 1938 leaving Padmini as his only surviving daughter. Therefore, certain relations of this Selvarajulu Chetty carried on the business purporting to claim it, the business, to be a joint family business. Matters went on thus. In 1948, a deed of partnership came into existence and Padmini, the daughter of Selvarajulu Chetty, was taken as a partner. Subsequnetly, however, Padmini instituted a suit in the High Court claiming that the business belonged solely to Selvarajula Chetty as his Self-acquired property and that the other so-called partners were not entitled to any interest in that business and sought a declaration that she was soley entitled to the business...
N. Selvaradjalou Chetty and Co. (India), Madras Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad118
Srinivasan, J.(1) The question that stands referred to us is.'Whether the legal expenses of Rs. 3900 and Rs. 6480 were allowable under the provisions of S. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act?'The facts leading to this question are these. One Selvarajulu Chetti was carrying on a stevedoring business in Madras. He died in 1938 leaving Padmini as his only surviving daughter. Thereafter certain relations of this Selvarajulu Chetti carried on the business purporting to claim it, the business, to be a joint family business. Matters went on thus. In 1948, a deed of partnership came into existence and Padmini, the daughter of Selvarajulu Chetti, was taken as a partner. Subsequently, however, Padmini instituted a suit in the High Court claiming that the business belonged solely to Selvarajulu Chetti as his self-acquired property and that the other so-called partners were not entitled to any interest in that business and sought a declaration that she was solely entitled to the business. Ther...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. the Tirunelveli Motor Bus Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad164; [1964]52ITR563(Mad)
1. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madras High Court answering the following question which had been referred to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter called the "Act" in the affirmative and against the assessee.Whether on the facts and In the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 54,479 is assessable in the year 1957-58 under the provisions of Section 10(2A) of the Income-tax Act of 1922?The assessee is a private limited company, it runs a fleet of buses. For the assessment year 1950-51 the assessee returned an income of Rupees 14,555/-. The Income-tax Officer required the assessee to furnish various particulars and documents under Section 22(4) of the Act. These were not furnished. Apart from committing a default under Section 22(4) it committed a default under Section 23(2). The Income-tax Officer made an assessment under Section 23(4) estimating the assessee's Income at Rs. 1,80,000/-. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant...
A. Somasundara Reddiar Vs. K.M.S. Roadways (P) Ltd. Jayankondan and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad58
(1) This appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami J. raises a question as to the validity of an order of the State Government, purporting to be made under S. 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby two existing routes for running stage carriages were curtailed in part and extended in another direction.(2) The appellant, a bus operator, had permits to run stage carriages over two routes, namely, Tiruchirapalli-Jayankondan-Sendurai and Tiruchirapalli-Jayankondan-Madanathur. In both the cases, the buses have to run over the same road from Tiruchirapalli to Jayankondan; thereafter, the route to Sendurai goes north, while that to Madanathur goes south. Originally, the buses ran only from Tiruchinapalli to Jayankondan. That route was sanctioned sometime prior to the years 1938. Subsequently, the routes were varied by the Regional Transport authority, so that the buses destined for Jayankodan were allowed to run to Madanathur and Sendurai. Those changes were effected in the years 1949 and 19...
R.L. Sahni and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Regiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad451; [1964(9)FLR184]
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The short question that arises is whether the petitioner establishment is entitled to the protection of Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. Generally stated, this Act makes the employers liable to pay certain amounts towards the provident fund of the employees. Section 16 of the Art, however, makes the Act inapplicable to any establishment 'employing 50 or more persons, or 20 or more but loss than 50 persons, until the expiry of three years in the case of the former and five years in the case of the latter from the date on which the establishment is or has been set up.' It is seen from this provision that in the case of an establishment liability to pay any contribution towards the employees' provident fund is postponed for a period of time from the date when it was set up and the question that I have to decide is whether the petitioner establishment is entitled to this 'infancy protection', as it is called.2. The petitioner company was incorporated ...
K. Mohamed Sheriff Vs. P.S. Mohamed Thasim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad453
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. This matter arises out of execution proceedings in O. S. No. 114 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif of Nagarcoil. The defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent filed the above suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. As the appellant remained absent, he was set ex parte, and a decree, as prayed by the respondent, was passed. Subsequently the appellant filed an. application for setting aside the ex parte decree and that application was dismissed. The decree-holder thereafter executed his decree and obtained delivery of possession. Subsequently, the appellant, in E. A. No. 413 of 1961, applied for setting aside the ex parte order of delivery and for re-delivery of the suit property to him on the ground that the learned District Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction, as the only forum, according to the then, prevailing statute, was the Rent Controller. The leaned District Munsif agreed with this contention., all...
Union of India (Uoi) by the Dept. of Company, Law Administration, Mini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad398
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred by the Union of India represented by the Department of Company Law Administration, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Under Section 22-A(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The petition is against the order passed by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, New Delhi, that the first respondent herein was not guilty of any professional or other misconduct Under Section 21 of take Chartered Accountants Act of 1949. In doing so, the Council of the Institute dissented from the finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the first respondent was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties as an auditor.2. The first respondent is a Chartered accountant. In the course of audit of the Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Madras, he checked, verified and approved the balance-sheet of the company as on 31-12-1951 the payment of remuneration to Messrs. Oakley Bowden and Co., as managing age...
S. Krishnamachari Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC445(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The sole point for consideration in this case is, whether the petitioner, who has been assessed to sales tax in respect of commission earned by him under a contract with the Railway Administration, during a period of two years from 1st August, 1958, to 31st July, 1960, is a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner is the Manager of the Swadesamitran Book Stall at the railway station at Tiruchirapalli Junction. Under an agreement with the Railway Administration, he undertook to vend on the station platform and along the train side, food packets, refreshments and beverages prepared by the Administration at the vegetarian refreshment room. He was allowed for the purpose, the use of the vessels, utensils, furniture, stores, etc., belonging to the Administration and was to be paid at the end of each day twelve naye Paise per rupee on the value of edibles or beverages etc., supplied to him. The petitioner should employ his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »