Chennai Court November 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.
Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Ayi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad262; 1966CriLJ764
(1) This revision case, in the first instance, came before Natesan J., who, on the view that an important question of law arises, considered that it should be decided by a Division Bench. That is how it comes before us.(2) The petitioner was convicted under rule 26(2) read with rule 33(1) of the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the power vested in them by S. 178 (xxii) of the Madras Panchayats Act 1958. This was on the ground that he was doing agriculture, and that he was liable to pay profession tax in respect of it, under Section 119 read with Section 121 of that Act. The court below was of the view that "agriculture" would fall within the purview of the term "calling" in Section 121. It did not precisely find as to the particular activity the petitioner was engaged in, which could be described as an agricultural operation, so as to view it as a profession.(3) Section 119(1) confers power on a village Panchayat to levy, inter alia, a profession tax, and Section 12...
Mangalathachi Vs. K.R. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ49
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She executed a mortgage bond in respect of a land R.S. No. 324/1, an extent of 33 cents in Thirupirambiam village on ,15th April, 1944, in favour of one Mangalam Anni for Rs. 200. It is admitted that the mortgage was taken for the benefit of the first defendant in the name of Mangalam Anni. Possession was delivered to the first defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 200 to the first defendant which according to him was due in respect of the mortgage on 30th April, 1959. The first defendant did not deliver possession of the suit land. Subsequently the plaintiff claimed for a return of Rs. 100 on the ground that she is entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act. It is unnecessary to consider that question of benefit under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act as it is not before me. Possession was not delivered to the plain-tiff, though the receipt of the sum of Rs. 200 and discharge of the mortgage was admitted...
Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad363; 1966CriLJ1149
ORDER(1) Petitioner Thangavelu has been convicted under S. 500 I.P.C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 and out of the fine amount if realised Rs. 100 has been ordered to be paid to P.W. 1 as compensation under S. 545(1), Cr.P.C.(2) The petitioner described the complainant Ponnammal as (concubine) of P.W. 2, Namasivaya Odayar in a plaint filed by him in S.C. No. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur. P.W. 1 (Ponnammal), complainant in this case, is an unmarried Brahmin woman aged thirty years and the statement of the petitioner in his plaint that she is the concubine of P.W. 2 is clearly defamatory. This is not disputed.(3) The facts mentioned in ground No. 7 as reasonable grounds for the belief of the petitioner that P.W. 1 (Ponnammal) was the concubine of P.W. 2 Namasivaya Odayar were considered by the courts below which negatived the contention of the petitioner. They found that P.W. 1 was an unmarried Brahmin girl and not a concubine of P.W. 2 (Namasivay...
T.T. Rathnasabapathy Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad340
1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, raises a question as to the character of the assessee's income which he received during the accounting year, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, as director's sitting fees from certain limited companies. The assessee is an advocate by profession of Coimbatore and is the karta of a Hindu undivided family. From 1924-25 to 1956-57, he was assessed as an individual on his income derived from the profession, dividend from companies and interest. In the course of these years, he acquired shares in a number of companies which yielded dividends from Rs. 3,136 in 1932-33 to Rs. 1,10,178 in 1970-61. By virtue of the share qualification he had, he also become a director in a number of these companies and the sitting fees received by him as a director increased from Rs. 12 in the year 1932-33 to Rs. 8,708 in the assessment year 1960-61.(2) On May 16, 1957, in relation to the assessment year for 1957-58, the assessee wro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›