Chennai Court December 1964 Judgments
Nafisa Zahara Begum Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad515; (1965)2MLJ157
ORDER(1) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a notice issued by the respondent, the Corporation of Madras, under S. 137-B of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919.(2) In respect of certain premises, the petitioner was paying a property tax of Rs. 322-21 nP 2-2-1963, the respondent issued a notice under S. 137-B of the Madras City Municipal Act demanding a sum of RS. 2730 as for tax and a further sum of Rs. 68-25, bringing a total of RS. 2798-25 for the first half year of 1962-63. It was also stated therein that the annual value of the premises, which was previously Rupees 2730 has been increased to Rs. 21,840 and this notice stated that in the exercise of the powers under S. 137-B, the sum demanded was treated as a sum due on an escaped assessment, and the petitioner as called upon to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of the service of the notice. She was also informed that if the amount was not paid, steps...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudam Thankayyan Vs. Rev. G.W.T. Trowell
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad32
1. These appeals are intimately related to each other, and spring from the subject matter of the same controversy and the same litigation. Hence, we are disposing of them by means of a common judgment. But it will be most convenient to deal first with L.P.A. 13 of 1963, which alone can be said to present any problems in adjudication. L.P.A. 12 of 1963, as we shall presently show when dealing with it, is of a very restricted scope, and can be effectively disposed of in a few lines.(2) As far as L.P.A. 13 of 1963 is concerned, the second appeal from which it now arises, was instituted before Ramakrishnan J. by the seven plaintiffs, the respondent being James Arthur Edwards (defendant-1). It is essential to turn to the facts of the litigation from which this second appeal ultimately emerged, which was O.S. 121 of 1950 before the learned District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The nine plaintiffs who brought forward that action of whom the first plaintiff was the attorney of the L.M.S. Corporation o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. R. Venugopala Reddiar, Sriranga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad96; [1965]58ITR439(Mad); (1964)1MLJ298
Srinivasan, J.(1) The assessee derived income from certain house properties in Burma during the accounting year ending with 30-9-1959, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. In respect of the gross income of Rs. 28,020 received under this head, the assessee had to pay municipal taxes of Rs. 3,019 and service taxes of Rs. 7,116. The assessee claimed to be entitled to deduct these amounts in computing his income under this head of income from property.The Income-tax Officer, while accepting the position that the income under this head as per the Burma assessment order was only Rs. 17,275, refused to allow the deduction of the municipal tax, as no particulars regarding the claim were made available. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that the income from property situate in Burma has to be computed in accordance with S. 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and, in doing so, tax, cess, etc. levied by a local authority must be taken to mean tax, cess and levy made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad512; 1965CriLJ777
1. This case is of considerable importance because circumstances of a similar nature have been before the Courts on several occasions and they have given rise to some considerable divergence of opinion.2. The facts are that a suit came before the District Munsif as to whether the defendants had unlawfully diverted some water from the land of the plaintiff and so injured his land. When the case came before the District Munsif certain plans and documents were put before him and then the plaintiff and some of the defendants agreed in writing and the pleader acting for the other defendants, I have no doubt, agreed to what appeared in writing that the learned Munsif should himself go and inspect the land. The terms of the agreement signed by the plaintiff and two of the defendants are contained in an affidavit which ran as follows:--"We agree to the matter being decided according to the opinion which the Court might entertain on the aforesaid local inspection without going into any further ...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Registrar of Companies, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad24; [1966]36CompCas961(Mad)
(1) Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., filed a balance sheet for the year ended 31-3-1962 with the Registrar of Companies. On the liabilities side under the heading 'secured loans' a sum of Rs. 36,57, 804 was exhibited as having been raised on the security of fixed deposits with the Bank. What happened was that Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., had some fixed deposits with the Bank and raised a loan from the Bank to the extent of Rs. 36,57,804, by pledging those fixed deposit receipts. This pledge was however not registered with the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar, however, took an objection that it was a charge which required to be registered under S. 125 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is here necessary to quote S. 125(1) and 125(4)(d) and (e). They are as follows:'Section 125: Certain charges to be void against liquidator or creditors unless registered: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, every charge created on or after the 1st day of April 1914, by a company and being a charg...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Varadarajaswami Transports (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad466; (1966)ILLJ699Mad
ORDER(1) The petitioner company was incorporated on 10th May 1960. It appears to consist on only two members, the Managing Director and his wife, who are the sole proprietors of the concern. Prior to the formation of the company, the Managing Director was the individual owner of the bus concern. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice dated 17-9-1962, demanding certain payments under the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The petitioner company contended that it came into existence only on 10th May 1960 and was entitled under S. 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act to exemption form the provisions of the law for a period of five years. This contention of the petitioner company was not accepted. Since penal action for failure to comply with the requirements of the notice was threatened, the petitioner has approached this court for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, from enforcing the Act and the scheme a...
Tag this Judgment!Nabisha Begum Vs. Arumuga thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad111
(1) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in A. S. 345 of 1960, which confirmed the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif in O. S. 40 of 1960. The prior facts so far as they are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are briefly the following. One Muthiah Pillai died in 1933, leaving behind his widow Kanthimathi Ammal, the fourth defendant in the suit, three sons Veluyatha Pillai, Ambalavana Pillai and Nelliappa Pillai and two daughters. With the daughters we are not concerned. In 1941, Nelliappa Pillai, who was a minor, sued through his uncle and next friend in O. S. 35 of 1941 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, for partition of the joint family properties set out in the various schedules to the plaint in that suit and for accounts. In that suit, he impleaded his brothers Ambalavana Pillai and Velayutha Pillai, his mother Kanthimathi Ammal and his sisters.The learned Subordinate Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Sivaram Vs. V.S. Jayaram Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad297
(1) The defendant in the suit O.S. 259 of 1956, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before us. The said suit was filed by the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 6600 as assignee of two hundies, Exts. A-1 and A-2, (which are now admitted to be promissory notes), executed by the appellant for Rs. 4000 and Rs. 1000 on 6-2-1952 in favour of one Rukmaniammal. Of the several pleas raised by the defendant the two pleas that were pressed before us are: (1) the amounts mentioned in the hundies are payable at a specified place, Madras and as there was no presentment of the promissory notes to the defendant for payment, the plaintiff has no right to maintain the suit: (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration, and that the defendant signed two blank, hundi forms and left the same with one T. S. Shanmugham, the husband of Rukmaniammal aforesaid, with a view to enable Shanmugham to raise money thereon, that the defendant's signature was obtained only by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. the Arcot Dhanasekhara Nidhi Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad472; [1966]59ITR480(Mad); (1965)1MLJ272
Srinivasan, J. (1) the assessee is the Arcot Dhanasekhara Nidhi Ltd. It carries on chit fund business, receives moneys on fixed, current and recurring deposits and lends out money, with or without security. Its source of income is derived form the chit fund business by way of commission and default interest form chit subscribers, who fail to pay the subscription within the stipulate time. It also earns income by way of interest on loans advanced to chit subscribers on the security of their chit subscriptions or on promissory notes. The company also pays interest to is depositors.It was the claim of the assessee that the company does this kind of business only with its own share holders and has no transactions with any person who is not a shareholder. The assessee claimed that its income was exempt on the principle of mutuality. The Income-tax Officer however rejected the claim for it was admitted before the Income-tax Officer that there were certain shareholders who had received divide...
Tag this Judgment!Khivraj Chordia Vs. G. Maniklal Bhattad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad67
(1) The tenant has preferred this revision petition under S. 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The respondent who is the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent for 18 months from March 1961 to September 1962, that the respondent required the premises, which is a car shed, for his own use and occupation to keep his car, which he had been garaging in a rented shed and that the tenant, having taken the premises as a car shed for garaging his car, was putting it to a different use, storing his goods for umbrella business. Both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority held that the landlord had not made out a case for evicting the tenant on the two later grounds. They concurrently held that the property was not leased for the express purpose of being used as a garage, that the tenant had been using the premises ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »