Chennai Court October 1965 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.
S. Vanchesan and ors. Vs. Brahmayya and Co., and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ20
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These are applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a common judgment and decree dated 1st May, 1963 passed by a Bench of this Court in appeals preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 1959 passed by Subrahmanyam, J., in Application No. 2826 of 1950 That was an application under Section 235 of the Companies Act, 1913, by the. Official Liquidators in the liquidation of the Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore. The respondents to the application were the Directors (Respondents 1 to 10), officers (Respondents n to 29) and the Auditor (Respondent 30) of the company. Various acts of misappropriation and misfeasance were alleged and the several respondents were sought to be made liable in respect of several transactions. Subramanyam, J., found that there were several misappropriations, irrecoverable advances and unauthorised declaration of dividend out of capital. In respect of them all, the Managing Director, K.V. Krishnamurthy Iyer (2n...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR578(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - The assessee, which is a private limited company, received in the accounting year, ended June 30, 1958, corresponding to the assessment year 1959-60, a surplus of Rs. 27,568 on sale of certain plots of land. This sum was charged to income-tax on the view that the sales constituted a venture in the nature of trade. On appeal, the tax was sustained on the ground that the transaction formed part of the business of the company. A further appeal by the assessee to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was however successful. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of any intention on the part of the assessee to deal in properties and that the effect of all the facts and circumstances of the case did not justify a conclusion that an adventure in the nature of trade was carried on. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has made this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, of the question whether the surplus realised by the...
V.K. Mohamed Rowther Vs. Chennapaiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad182
(1) This is an appeal against an order passed on an interlocutory application in O.S. 24 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem. The learned Judge has dismissed the application of the appellant (14th defendant) under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him in the suit after remand of the same by the High Court. The suit was by a reversioner for setting aside various alienations. The appellant is one of the alienees who purchased a certain item for valuable consideration. Originally, the suit was decreed ex parte on 31-3-1952. A number of alienees including the appellant filed an appeal to this court, and the suit was remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal by an order dated 19-11-1959. The lower court received the material records on 27-7-1960 and the suit was posted for appearance of parties on 30-8-1960 on which date the respondents (Plaintiffs) alone appeared by counsel and the defendants including the appellant were absent....
S.T. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, Kultipirai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad224
Veeraswami, J. (1) The cases of the two assessees are consolidated in this reference under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The reference turns on the character of the receipt by each of them of a sum of Rs. 19672, which represents the gain over the cost of a third share in a leasehold interest in what is called Thombai estate in Malaya acquired by the Government of that country on 31-12-1954. This amount was brought to tax on the view of the Revenue, with whom the tribunal concurred, that it was a revenue receipt. The question referred to us is:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no material to support the finding of the tribunal that the sum of Rs. 19675 constituted a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax?'A Preshyterian Church of England in Malaya had a 999 years lease from the Sultan of Johore Baru in Thomboi estate and from the church. Chidambaram Chettiar and his divided brother purchased the lease hold interest for a consideration o...
S. T. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR184(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - The cases of the two assessees are consolidated in this reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The reference turns on the character of the receipt by each of them of a sum of Rs. 19,673, which represents the gain over the cost of a third share in a leasehold interest in what is called Thomboi Estate in Malaya acquired by the Government of that country on December 31, 1954. This amount was brought to tax on the view of the revenue, with whom the Tribunal concurred, that it was a revenue receipt. The question referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was no material to support the finding of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 19,673 constituted a revenue receipt assessable to income-tax ?'A Presbyterian Church of England in Malaya had a 999 years lease from the Sultan of Johore Baru in Thomboi Estate and from the church Chidambaram Chettiar and his divided brother purchased the leasehold interest for a conside...
C.R. Padmanabha Chetty Vs. Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Salem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad450
ORDER(1) The petitioner is a dealer in gold and a licenced pawnbroker. The Gold Control Rules framed under the authority of the Defence of India Act, 1962, prohibit by Rule 126-D(2) a person, who is a dealer, whether licensed or not, from carrying on business as money-lender or banker in the same premises in which he carries on business as a dealer. This rule is attacked by the petitioner as devoid of any legal basis. It is claimed that the equitable construction of the rules could permit the carrying on of money-lending business and banking business along with dealing in gold by dealers and that the Department, represented by the Central Excise Authorities, have taken an erroneous view of the relevant provisions. This equitable construction is based upon the other part of the Rule 136-D, to which reference will be made shortly. It is said that on the erroneous interpretation of the rules, the Excise authorities are threatening to prosecute the petitioner and other dealers and also to ...
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Registrar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad415; [1966]36CompCas58(Mad); 1966CriLJ1279
ORDER(1) These related revision proceedings involve the same point, though two separate proceedings in revision have been filed, as concerning different years. On the facts, there is no dispute. It is conceded, with reference to the scope of Ss. 220(1)(a) and 220(3) of the Companies Act, (as amended by Act 65 of 1960), that 'three copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account, signed by the Managing Director........' were not filed with the Registrar along with the annual return. The technical offences would thus appear to be indisputably established.(2) But the point urged by learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that S. 220(1) begins 'after the balance sheet and the profit and loss account have been laid before the company at the annual general meeting as aforesaid'. It is not in dispute that under earlier provisions of the same Act, namely, Ss. 159, 166 and 210, the balance sheet and the annual profit and loss account have to be laid before the company at the annu...
Collector of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Estate of Janab S. Ibrahim Rowthe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad408; [1966]60ITR269(Mad)
(1) This reference raises a question of interpretation and application to the facts and circumstances of this case of S. 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. Janab S. Ibrahim Rowther was the owner of the premises bearing Nos. 90, 91 and 92 East Avani Moola St. Madurai. On 2-4-1956, he made a gift of a 7/8th share in the premises to his children, and reserved the remaining one-eighth share for himself. There was no division of the premises by metes and bounds in accordance with the relative shares. There is no dispute that a part of the premises had been let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 350 to Messrs. Ibrahim and Co., a firm of partnership of which Janab S. Ibrahim Rowther and his sons were partners. The deceased shared and appropriated to himself a one-eighth share out of the rent received in respect of the portion so let out. Janab S. Rowther died on 23-5-1959.In assessing his estate under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty was of the vie...
N. S. S. Sokkalingam Chettiar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR671(Mad)
KAILASAM J. - The question that is referred for decision of this court is :'Whether the refusal to grant registration to the firm under section 26A of the Act for the three assessment year 1958-59 to 1960-61 is not justified ?'One Sreeranga Mudaliar commenced business in retail handloom cloth at Erode and was carrying it on in his individual capacity for about three years. In or about 1957, he took in certain other persons as partners and a partnership deed was duly executed on September 5, 1957, consisting of four partners and with a capital provided as under : (1) Sokkalingam Chettiar - Rs. 5,937-8-0, (2) Sethu Achi - Rs. 1,562-8-0, (3) Sreeranga Mudaliar - Rs. 1,250 and (4) R. S. Manickam - Rs. 1,250. The partnership deed consisted of various clauses which conferred overriding powers on the first partner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused registration on the ground that the partnership deed placed restrictions on the powers of the other partners and those restrictions red...
S. Subramaniam Vs. K.V. Rajaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad355
(1) This revision proceeding involves a question of great interest, upon which there are few authorities, the present context of this question being the interpretation of S. 17(4) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It may be convenient, at the outset itself, to set forth the sub-sections."If the controller on enquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities and that they were cut off or withheld by the landlord without just or sufficient cause or if the landlord was in any way responsible for the amenities being cut off, or withheld, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities"(2) The facts of the present matter are not in dispute. One K. V. Rajaram (first respondent here) was a tenant of one of the rooms in premises No. 81, C. N. Krishnaswami Road, Triplicane, Madras. The history of this building is as follows. It originally belonged to the estate of a certain Audikesavalu Naidu, and it vested in the Official Tr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »