Chennai Court February 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.
A. Ramalingam Vs. V.V. Mahalinga Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad21; 1966CriLJ35; (1965)2MLJ162
ORDER(1) After having heard learned counsel, and very carefully considered the situation in which we are called upon to exercise our jurisdiction under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, XXXII of 1952, we are clearly and definitely of the view that, assuming the facts to be as stated by the petitioner, it would not be expedient in the interests of justice to exercise that jurisdiction here, for more than one reason. We are taking it that there is a temporary prohibitory injunction decree made by the appellate Court, which has been disobeyed by the respondent, in the sense that he has erected certain buildings in infringement of that prohibitory injunction. In such a case, it is obvious that Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a clear and adequate remedy, the party aggrieved may bring it to the notice of the Court granting the injunction, that its decree or order has not been respected, and that Court, after due enquiry, may exercise the punitive powers again...
A. S. K. Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR312(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byP. CHANDRA REDDY C.J. - The two questions that call for decision in this reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act are framed in the following word :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the salary of the salary of Rs. 6,000 paid to Sri Kathiresa Nadar in his individual capacity in the assessment of Messrs. A. S. K. Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm, in which the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons was a partner through him as the karta is legal and correc ?(2) Whether in this case a direction under section 33(5) should have been given to the Income-tax Officer to eliminate the salary paid to Sri Kathiresa Nadar in working out the share of income of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the kart ?'This reference relates to the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee is a registered firm composed of three partners, (1) A. S. K. Rathnaswamy Nadar, (2) R. Raja Sankaralin...
India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. (P), Madras Vs. the Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad411; [1966]60ITR531(Mad)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following questions relating to the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, for the opinion of this court:Assessment year 1963-64 ;"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held in law that the sums of Rs. 6,25,000, being provision for taxation, Rs. 4,05,000, being proposed dividends, and Rs. 4,664, being the surplus in the profit and loss appropriation account, could not be considered as 'reserve' and, therefore, not includible in the computation of the capital of the company for the assessment year 1963-64, under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?"Assessment year 1964-65:"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held in law that the sum of Rs. 2,65,000, being proposed dividends, could not be considered as ' reserve ' and, therefore, not includible in the computation of the capital of the company for the assessm...
Kandaswami Weaving Factory I Co. Vs. Regional Director,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad51
(1) This appeal is directed against an order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, holding that the appellant is liable to pay the employer's special contribution to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, under S. 73-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act. The appellant contended before the Commissioner that the persons employed in his establishment were not workmen as defined by S. 2(9) of the Act and that the establishment itself was not a factory as defined in the Factories Act. On those grounds, he denied his liability to make the employer's special contribution. Before me the order of the Commissioner has been canvassed on the ground that the indicia required to constitute the relationship of master and servant are wholly absent, so that the appellant would not come within the purview of the Employees' State Insurance Act. But in view of the question raised for the respondent and the view I take on that question, it has become unnecessary...
Nalla Senapathi Sarkarai Manradiar. Vs. Sri Ambal Mills (P) Ltd. and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad53; 1966CriLJ146
(1) This proceeding is sought to be filed under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents on record, of whom the first respondent is Sri Ambal Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., a company in Coimbatore, the second respondent is the Managing director of the company, the third respondent is another director, and the eleventh respondent is an Advocate who is the legal adviser of the company. The facts essential for an appreciation of the scope of this proceeding are simple, and, for the most part, not in controversy. It appears that the petitioner, who is a shareholder in this company, holding 2001 shares, instituted O. S. 1441 of 1964 in the court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, against respondents 1 and 2 for a permanent injunction, restraining them from convening or conducting an extraordinary general meeting which was to be held on 14th December 1964, in pursuance of a notice issued by the second respondent. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed I. A. No. 1840 of 19...
N. Naganatha Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR647(Mad)
JUDGEMENTThe judgement of the court was delivered byVENKATADRI J. - The Tribunal has submitted a statement of the case, directed under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the statment of the case discloses the following facts :The assessee, Naganatha Iyer, is a member of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his father, Narayanaswsami Iyer, and his brother, Ganapathy Iyer. The family was carrying on business in rice-mill fire-wood, oil-cake and soap-nut power at Tiruchirapalli. In February, 1941, the assessee entered into a partnership with one Manickam and carried on business under the name and style of 'Andhra Trading Company'. The firm traded in fire-wood and oil-cake and also plied lorries for hire. The business of the firm was also carried on at Tiruchirapalli. For the assessment year 1942-43, which was the very first year of assessment for the firm, the share income from the said firm was returned by the assessee as his separate income. The Hindu undivided f...
P. Kader Batcha Vs. K.A. Alagarswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad438; (1965)2MLJ530
(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the defendant in an action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for a trespass to person. After a review of the facts, and the principles of law applicable to a case of the kind, Ramachandra Iyer J. (As he then was) decided in S. A. 1278 of 1960 firstly, that there was trespass committed by the appellant upon the person of a certain Alagarswami Naicker (plaintiff in the suit), next that the trespass occurred under such circumstances of malicious and mala fide action as to entitle the plaintiff to damages, and, finally, that the claim for damages is in regard to this tort was not barred by limitation, with respect to he processions of S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act. The learned Judge quantified the damages at Rs. 100 and gave a decree for that amount, with subsequent interest and costs. He also granted leave, and hence the Letters Patent Appeal by the defendant.(2) The facts are practically not in dispute, and learn...
T. S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1965
Reported in: [1965]56ITR455(Mad)
.SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family and was assessed as such in the previous assessment years. On December 7, 1957, a document was executed, whereunder the assessee purported to become divided in status. The only other member of the joint Hindu family was, at the material date, his minor son. This document was registered on February 21, 1958. On that date, the assessee wrote to various companies, in which the family held shares, instructing the companies to alter the name of the owner on the books of the companies in respect of those shares according to the mode of division entered into on partition. The family owned 3,293 shares in Messrs, Southern Roadways Private Limited. Of these, 1,000 shares were transferred to the wife of the assessee and 500 shares to each of his two daughters. The company, in the course, registered the transfer in its books.On March 27, 1958, the assessee intimated the Income-tax Officer of the division that had taken place ...
Murali Santaram and Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR482(Mad)
That an appeal under section 66A(2) of the Income-tax Act is not competent against an order of this High Court dismissing an application under section 66(2) of the Act has been decide by this court in Omar Salay Mohammed Sait v. Commissioner of Income-tax. Learned counsel suggests that the word 'reference' has not been defined and it should include an 'application to refer' and, so construed, the order of this court dismissing such an application would be a judgment for the purpose of section 66A(2). We are unable to agree. Section 66(5) deals with a judgment of the High Court on a reference made under either section 66(1) or section 66(2) and it is such a judgment that is contemplated by section 66A(2). In our view, an appeal does not lie and we dismiss the petitions with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 150. (One set).Petitions dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›