Chennai Court December 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.
R. Kalyanasundaram Pillai Vs. M.N. Palaniappa Mudaliar and Sons and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad29; (1965)2MLJ11
ORDER(1) One Kalyanasundaram Pillai, who was adjudged insolvent in I. P. 5 of 1958 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The short point that arises for decision is whether the unconditional annulment of his adjudication under S. 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is valid and binding upon the creditors, as the annulment was made without notice to them.(2) In this case, the petitioner was adjudged insolvent on 4-12-1959 and one year's time was fixed for the debtor to apply for discharge. As no application was filed for obtaining discharge, the Official Receiver moved the insolvency court on 21-12-1960, for the annulment of the adjudication, and it was accordingly annulled by order of court dated 23-12-1960. The petitioning creditor filed an application, out of which this revision petition arises, on 13-3-1961 for extending the time for discharge, and the petition was returned on the ground that the adjudication had already been annulle...
Akberally Esufally Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: [1966]60ITR563(Mad)
SThe judgments of the court was delivered bySRINIVISAN J. - The question that stand referred to us is :'Whether there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that Rs. 50,000 was the income of the assessee assessable to tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act in the assessment year 1947-48 ?'The assessee is a partner in the firm of Messrs. Gulamally & Co., doing business as hardward merchants in Madras. At the time of the original assessment, the assessee did not disclose in his returns that he had made any investments or that he had any source of income other than his share in the above firm. Later, on however, information reached the Income-tax Officer that, during the financial year 1946-47, the assessee had made three fixed deposits of Rs. 50,000 each in the Bank of India at Palanpur. Originally, the entire sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was brought in for assessment in proceedings under section 34 of the Act, but, ultimately, the Tribunal directed the exclusion of two sums of Rs. 50,0...
A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad480; [1965]56ITR556(Mad); (1965)1MLJ265
Srinivasan, J.(1) Abdul Rahman Rowther was the proprietary owner of a tobacco business. He entered into a partnership with his two married daughters and on that basis sought registration of the firm under S. 26-A of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the application holding that the 'partnership deed was a sham document', that there was no genuine firm and that the business continued to be that of Abdul Rahman Rowther alone. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concurred in these findings. He also thoughts that that interest of the two daughters in the firm was created by alleged gifts of Rs. 25,000 to each of them by the father, and that the gifts were not valid as there was no handing over of the cash to the daughters. He was also inclined to hold that the making of a gift of a large part of the assets to only two of his daughters in preference to his several other children was unnatural. He further relied on the fact that on an earlier occasion Abdul Rahm...
Manian Natesan and Chandran Natesan Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad458; [1965]56ITR5(Mad); (1965)1MLJ339
(1) By his will dated 2-7-1947, the testator G. A. Natesan made certain dispositions of his property. One item of property is a building known as Mangala Vilas. Paragraph 8(a) of the Will in respect of this property states--"My wife shall be entitled to live in the separated and demarcated main building, i.e., "Mangala Vilas" bungalow for her life. It is my desire that my two sons with their family should live with my wife amicably. But, if for any reason differences arise between them, they shall remove themselves to the houses separately allotted................."Paragraph 8(b):"After the life time of my wife, the said 'Mangala Vilas' bungalow shall be enjoyed by my two sons for life in equal life in equal shares........"Paragraph 8(e) is to the following effect:--"I give my two sons, Manian Natesan and Chandran Natesan power to sell the 'Mangala Vilas' bungalow..................if a good price be offered provided the previous consent and concurrence of my wife shall have been obtain...
Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad529; (1965)2MLJ120
(1) The appellant is the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. It carries on business by selling petrol and petroleum products wholesale and retail. It has depots at Ernakulam in the Kerala State and it supplies petrol and petroleum products to purchasers in the Madras State and, in many instances the deliveries are effected from and out of stock held by it at Ernakulam. It is from this storage point that supplies and deliveries are made in fulfilment of the contracts of sale entered into by the appellant with the purchasers inside the Madras State. It is not in dispute that after the deliveries were effected to such purchasers at Ernakulam to the Madras State by the railway. The purchasers take the railway receipts in their own names, clear the goods and obtain delivery from the common carrier at Madras. Such sales, during the years 1953-54 to 1055-56 up to 5-9-1955 were not included in the return submitted by the appellant, for taxation under the Madras Sales o...
H.H. Naeems and Co. Vs. the Additional Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC294(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. For the assessment year 1952-53, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on 15th February, 1956. It preferred an appeal and that appeal, which was pending by the date of passing of Act I of 1959, was taken on file and disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The collection of tax was stayed pending appeal. The appeal was however dismissed on 15th October, 1960. Thereafter, a notice of demand was served upon the petitioner on 8th June, 1961, and the tax was paid on 24th August, 1962.2. On 4th September, 1962, the Additional Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice purporting to be under Section 24(3) of the Act demanding a penalty of Rs. 6,368-89. The reason was that the payment of the tax as assessed was delayed by the assessee and the period for which the penalty was levied was from the date of passing of Act I of 1959. The legality of this levy is questioned in this writ petition and certiorari has been prayed for to quash the demand. It is claimed...
Lilly White Vs. R. Munuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad13; (1965)1MLJ7
(1) This revision proceeding is sought to be instituted by a firm of launderers and dry cleaners, M/s. Lily White, who were defendants in a small cause action. The facts relating to the proceeding are certainly exceptional, and of a considerable degree of interest upon the question of trade ethics, and the claim of the revision petitioner, quite tersely stated, to enforce an obligation which is opposed to public policy and the common law. On 13-5-1963, the plaintiff in the case gave a new saree (6 yards in length) and a blouse, to the firm of the revision petitioners for dry cleaning. The revision petitioners undertook to dry-clean the articles and to redeliver on 18-5-1963. Admittedly, the saree was never redelivered, and it must be held that the garment has disappeared, though only negligence is alleged against revision petitioners in this respect and, not mala fides. The plaintiff, in essence, claimed the market value of the entrusted article.(2) The defence to this action was a ver...
Kumaraswami Gounder Vs. the Joint Collector, Coimbatore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad431; (1965)2MLJ375
(1) We are definitely of the view that the admission of this writ appeal would be outside the true function and scope of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Briefly stated, the facts are that appellant was the President of the Ukkaram Panchayat, and he filed W. P. No. 415 of 1964 before Srinivasan J., for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of he Joint Collector, Coimbatore, removing the petitioner from the post of President, consequent upon what the Collector held to be a valid motion of 'No confidence' passed against the President.(2) The writ petitioner contended before the learned Judge (Srinivasan J.) that, though, undoubtedly, there was such a motion of 'No confidence' passed against him, it was not a valid resolution, because, four of the participating members had become disqualified by reason of non-attendant at three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat. On this aspect, there was a controversy on a question of fact before the learned Judge, ...
Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited Vs. State of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1964
Reported in: [1966]59ITR184(Mad)
RAMAKRISHNAN J. - These four cases were heard together as the points in controversy are the same. Messrs. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited is the assessee and will be referred to as the petitioner in all these cases. The petitioner is a company incorporated in Great Britain and carries on the business of tea planting in India. Its headquarters office in India is in Munnar in Kerala State. It owns tea estates situated in the States of Assam, Kerala and Madras. One of the estates belonging to the petitioner is known as Chittuvarrai estate comprising 1,043 acres of tea plantation. Out of this, 1,006.60 acres are situated in Kerala State, while the balance of 36.40 acres are situated in Madras State. According to the petition Chittuvarri estate is worked as one unit. It has only one factory for manufacturing the tea grown in Kerala and the Madras portions of the estate. The managerial, supervisory and clerical staff and the estate labour force are combined for the whole estate. T...
Motimul Sowcar Vs. Visalakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad432; (1965)2MLJ371
(1) S. A. NO. 1389 of 1960 related to a suit filed in the City Civil Court by a certain Visalakshi Ammal (plaintiff) for a declaration that she was the absolute owner of the superstructure in premises comprising door No. 21 Broadies Road, Mylapore. The suit was decreed by the learned Assistant Judge, who gave a finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the mortgaged property in controversy, and also a consequential declaration that the mortgage executed by Maduraimuthu Naicker, husband of the plaintiff, would not bind the plaintiff with regard to her interest in the property, i.e., the proprietary interest in the superstructure. The first defendant-mortgagee preferred a first appeal to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court. That court confirmed the findings of the trial court, and dismissed the appeal.(2) The first defendant-mortgagee thereupon instituted S. A. No. 1339 of 1960, which came up for hearing and disposal before Venkatadri J. The learned Judge went into the evidence...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »