Chennai Court August 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.
Appavoo Pillai (Died) and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad406; [1965]57ITR41(Mad); (1965)1MLJ37
(1) The question referred to us under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act is:"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 9323 on the assessee under S. 18-A(9) read with S. 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was lawful?"The assessment year is 1954-55, the relevant account year ending with 31-3-1954. The assessee has several sources of income; one of them is a bus business. In September 1953, the Income-tax Officer issued a demand under S. 18A(1) of the Act, basing that demand on the last completed assessment, which was that of the assessment year 1948-49. Under sub-section, (2) the assessee has the liberty of estimating his income and of paying advance tax in accordance with such estimate. In the estimate so submitted by him, he gave the estimated income as furnished by him which came to Rs. 35,515. On assessment, however, his income was fixed at Rs. 90,759.The Income-tax Officer thereafter proceeded by apply S. 18-A(9) of the Act. This sub-sec...
Sundaram Raman and anr. Vs. Bhayavathiamma Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad412
(1) In a suit for recovery of a sum of money the parties agreed by an endorsement on the plaint that, if the 4th defendant took an oath as indicted in the endorsement, the plaintiff's suit should stand dismissed. It the 4th defendant did not take such an oath, then the suit should be decreed. The 4th defendant did not take the oath. Before the trial court, it was contended by the 4th defendant that he did not agree to take the oath in a temple as stated in the endorsement, but was only prepared to take the oath in court. But the learned District Munsif found that the endorsement had been signed not only by the parties but also by their advocates. Holding that the endorsement was binding, the suit was decreed in terms of the endorsement. On appeal, the learned District Judge confirmed the lower court's decision. The defendants have preferred this second appeal.(2) The ground which was canvassed by Sri T. R. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellants, is that the failure of a part...
K. Yegnasankaranarayana Iyer Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC149(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These revision cases are filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 1419 and 1338 of 1961 respectively. They relate to the assessment of the same assessee for 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively. The nature of the business of the assessee has been described at more than one stage in the course of the assessment proceedings. It appears to be as follows: The assessee is a merchant dealing in brass and copper vessels. In the course of his business, he accumulates scrap out of old brass and copper vessels and these are delivered from time to time to a firm that is engaged in the melting of such brass and copper scrap and adding zinc to it wherever necessary in a prescribed proportion of copper to brass (roughly 60:40) to melt them into brass alloy, which is thereafter beaten into discs and sheets, according to the requirements of the vessel merchant, and supplied to him. The manufacturer (Nellai Metal Rolling Mills Private Limited) produced a r...
Ayya Pilial and ors. Vs. Manickam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ167
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. The revision proceeding involves an Interesting point, with regard to the applicability of See. 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. XTK of 1929, to the facts of the case. Section 5 runs as follows:Whoever performs, conducts or directs any child marriage shall be punishable...unless he proves that he had reason to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage.The 4th revision petitioner was the 5th accused in a prosecution under the Act, and the propriety of the convictions of the other accused in the case is now before me.2. Admittedly, the 4th revision petitioner, a member of the Panchayat Board of the locality, attended this marriage, which was a child marriage. She does not claim that she had reason to believe that the marriage was not a child marriage; and, hence, the proviso to Section 5 is not relevant to the present facts. The problem is, whether a person who attends a child marriage, as a guest, and participates in some limited manner in the m...
In Re : Paramayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ557
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore. One Paramayyan was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, for offences punishable under Section 454(II) and Section 380 read with Section 75 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months for each of the offences, the sentences to run concurrently. The conviction was imposed on 30.5.1964, and the accused preferred an appeal through jail authorities on 15.6.1964. It was forwarded by the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Cuddalore, on 16.6.1964, and was received at the Sessions Court, Tanjore, on 18.6.1964. It was taken up on file on the same day and numbered as C.A. 77 of 1964. On 26.6.1964, an appeal was presented on behalf of the accused, Paramayyan, by his advocate. This was taken up on file on the same day and notice was ordered to the Public Prosecutor and the records were directed to be sent up for the hearing on 17.7.1964. After the filing of the appeal by the advocate, t...
N. S. Kantan Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1964
Reported in: [1965]58ITR53(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byRAMAMURTI J. - The petitioner in this case made a claim before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, for recognition and acceptance of a partition amongst members of his family. But the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for reasons(the correctness of which it is unnecessary to consider now) declined to accept the case of partition. Thereupon the petitioner, without filing an appeal as provided in the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), straightaway preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner for Agricultural Income-tax under section 34 of the Act and he too dismissed the petition. The petitioner has thereupon preferred this revision petition under section 54 of the Act.The learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection that no revision lies in the instant case under section 54 of the Act as the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the revision application filed before him under...
M.A. and Sons Vs. Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad392
(1) This appeal instituted by M. A. and Sons (appellants) from the order and decree of the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing O. P. No. 478 of 1961, involves certain questions of interest with regard to a reference to arbitration, as provided for by the by-laws of the Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange (Pte.) Ltd (first respondent). The essential facts and dates are as follows:(2) There were certain contracts, which were of the character of forward contracts, as between the appellants and the second respondent firm (Kilachand and Devchand and Co. Pte. Ltd.) for supplies of groundnut oil on differing dates. It is not in dispute that, owing to the alleged bursting of the boiler apparatus, the appellants were unable to deliver, and reported the inability; in brief, the contracts were broken. On the principle of S. 60 of the Indian Sales of Goods Act, the second respondent choose to treat the contract as subsisting, and waited till the date of delivery. As the...
The State of Madras Vs. T. Narayanaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad360; [1965]16STC29(Mad)
(1) These two cases were hard together as they raise a common point. We will take up T. C. No. 105 of 1963 first. The assessee is a dealer in cotton and cotton seeds. During the year of assessment 1960-61 it was found that the dealer had with him, at the close of the year, stock of cotton valued at Rs. 2,27,250. Cotton in the year in question was an item of declared goods under S. 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, it being considered to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. The consequence of such a declaration is, as per S. 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, that the sales tax law of a State can levy a tax on the sales or purchases of cotton at a rate which shall not exceed two percent and the sales tax shall not be levied at more than one stage. There is a further benefit conferred under S. 15(b), that where a tax has been levied under the State law on any declared goods and such goods are sold by the assessee thereafter in the course of inter-State trade ...
F. Rose Mary Carpentry Works Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC924(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimba-tore IV, assessed Messrs F. Rose Mary Carpentry Works, Coimbatore, dealers in radio cabinets, for the year 1960-61, on a turnover of Rs. 35,106-15 nP. at 7 per cent. This tax was leviable at 7 per cent, under serial No. 5 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which reads :Wireless reception instruments and apparatus, radios and radio gramophones, electrical valves, accumulators, amplifiers and loud speakers and spare parts and accessories thereof.2. There is however one more provision, namely, that contained in Section 3(3) of the Act, which reads:3. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in that Schedule, which he intends to manufacture for sale inside the State, shall be at th...
N.B. Devaraj and anr. Vs. V.N. Wilt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad453; 1965CriLJ515
ORDER(1) This revision case has been filed by the accused in C. C. 1756 of 1963 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coonoor. One Wilt filed a complaint against them for offences punishable under Ss. 341, 451 and 454 I.P.C. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Coonoor, before whom the complaint w filed, sent it for investigation to the police who referred the case as one of a civil nature. Thereupon Wilt filed a protest Memo before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coonoor, who directed him to fill it in a complaint form. After this was done, the complaint was taken on file and proceeded with by the learned first Class Magistrate, who however found no sufficient ground for proceeding further in the matter and dismissed the complaint under S. 203 Cr.P.C. Simultaneously, he is said to have lodged the previous complaint already referred by the police. When, however, the dismissal order was taken in revision before the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, he set as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »