Chennai Court March 1965 Judgments
V. Kannia Lal and ors. Vs. Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad82; (1965)2MLJ464
1. Claimants 1 to 11 in the land acquisition proceedings are the appellants. A total extent of 3 cawnies, 7 grounds and 661 sq. ft. comprised in R. S. 2381/88 in Mylapore was acquired compulsorily under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for construction of quarters for the staff of the police department. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was made on 29-1-1958. On the basis of a sale dated 11-5-1957, of an extent of 2046 sq. ft. for Rs. 2500 in R. S. 2195/1, 4 and 5 in Mylapore, which works out at the rate of Rs. 2932 per ground, the Land Acquisition Officer allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2130 per ground, after deducting 25 per cent of the area for providing roads and Rs. 800 per ground for meeting the cost of laying roads. He awarded Rs. 1,26,642-70 nP. at that rate for the extent of two cawnies, 11 grounds and 1096 sq. ft. On a reference to the City Civil Court, under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the learned Assistant Judge of that court raised the comp...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kadir Ibrahim Rowther and anr. Vs. Noor Mohammad Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad60
(1) The defendants in a suit, where a preliminary decree for the taking of accounts of a transport concern has been passed, have preferred this appeal against the final decree in the matter. I have just now delivered judgment in S. A. 798 of 1961 confirming the preliminary decree passed by the courts below.(2) The plaintiff's suit was laid on the basis that he was partner with the first defendant in the transport concern and reliefs for dissolution and accounts were claimed. The defence, inter alia, was that the plaintiff was merely an employee in the business, placed in the management of the business with an obligation to run the concern, and remunerated by a half share in the profits, with no interest in the assets of the business. The original agreement relating to the service was between the plaintiff and the first defendant, evidenced by Ex. B. 1, and later the agreement was renewed in favour of the second defendant, Ex. B.2. Several pleas were raised by the plaintiff in relation...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karunanidhi Vs. M. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Mad54; 1968CriLJ177
Veeraswami, J.(1.) This is petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and S. 491, Crl. P. C., for a writ in the nature of Habeus Corpus directing release of the petitioner from detention. He was apprehended at about midnight on 16-2-1965 at his residence at Madras by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Madras, and has been taken to Palayamcottai and detained at the Borstal School there from the morning of the 18th. At 9 a.m. on that day, he was served with the order of detention made under R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He is a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is a member of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and is said to be the treasurer and leading member of the working committee of the party. He alleges in his affidavit that he was a signatory to a resolution passed on 8-1-1965 by the working committee of his party to treat 26-1-1965 as a day of mourning, because Hindi as the official...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karunanidhi Vs. M. Raman, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ283
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing release of the petitioner from detention. He was apprehended at about midnight on 16th February, 1965, at his residence at Madras by the first respondent. Assistant Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), Madras, and has been taken to Palayamcottai and detained at the Borstal School there from the morning of the 18th. At 9 A.M. on that day he was served with the order of detention made under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. He is a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He is a member of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and is said to be the Treasurer and leading member of the working committee of the party. He alleges in his affidavit that he was a signatory to a resolution passed on 8th January, 1965, by the working committee of his party to treat 2...
Tag this Judgment!O.M.S. Pl.A. Alagappa Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR440(Mad)
VENKATADRI J. - In these two references, the common questions that arise for our determination are : (1) Whether the surplus realisations of 5,150 and 7,038 dollars on the sale of properties were revenue receipts assessable under the Indian Income tax Act; and (2) Whether the sums of Rs. 9,778 and Rs. 9,676 can be held to be interest receipts and as such part of the income of the assessees headquarters businesse ?The assessee, in Tax Case No. 154/62, is a Hindu undivided family, and in Tax Case No. 3/62 is an individual member deriving income from property, money-lending business at headquarters at Devakottach. Up to the year April 13, 1957, the business at Kampar, Tappah and at other places in Malaya was run as a partnership firm with the assessee and five others as partners. This firm carried on business in money-lending and also in the purchase and sale of real properties. After April 13, 1957, this firm was dissolved and the assessee got one-sixth share in the assets of the firm, b...
Tag this Judgment!P. Appavu Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR622(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - One of the allowances which has to be taken into account in the computation of the profit and gains of a business is what is termed obsolescence allowance. Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-Tax Act specifies this allowance and the condition under which it can be granted in these term :'In respect of any such building, machinery or plant which has been sold or discarded or demolished or destroyed, the amount by which the written down value thereof exceeds the amount for which the building, machinery or plant, as the case may be, is actually sold, or its scrap valu :Provided that such amount is actually written of in the books of the assessee.'The assessee in this case was operating a bus transport business as sole proprietor from the 1st of April, 1948. For the periods ending with the 31st of March, 1949, 31st March, 1950, and 31st of March, 1951, relevant to the assessment years 1949-50, 1950-51 and 1951-52, the assessee claimed ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajagopalaswamy Naidu Vs. the Bank of Karaikudi Ltd
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad537; (1965)2MLJ233
(1) This is a defendant's appeal form a mortgage decree. He had executed the mortgage on 14-10-1950, charging premises No. 162-A West Masi St., Madurai, with the repayment of Rs. 45000 with interest at 14 annas per hundred rupees per mensem. It was further stipulated that Rs. 5000 should be paid within a period of 6 months form the date of the mortgage towards the principal and the balance of the principal should be paid within a period of two years form the inception, and that on default, interest should be calculated at the rate of 12 per cent; but if there was continued default, interest should be raised to 131/2 per cent. Admittedly, the sum of Rs. 5000 was paid within the time specified, but the balance remained totally unpaid. On 4-1-1952, the appellant and his wife borrowed Rs. 25000 and jointly executed a promissory note. On 16-1-1952, the appellant's wife deposited her title deeds relating to premises No. 162 West Masi St. This borrowing was therefore on a mortgage by deposit...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaswami and anr. Vs. R. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad163; 1966CriLJ548; (1965)2MLJ232
ORDER(1) This petition is filed under S. 561-A, Cri.P.C. for reviewing the judgment of this court passed in Cri.R.C. 476 of 1964. This court in revision confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners for the offences of criminal trespass. Under S. 369, Cri.P.C. no criminal court when it has signed the judgment shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical error. It is submitted that this section is not applicable to the High Court especially when it is disposing of appeals or revisions. It has been repeatedly held by this court from In re Arumugha Padayachi, 1926 Mad WN 147: AIR 1926 Mad 420 that a criminal court has no power to review its judgment when once it has been signed. The learned counsel on the authority of the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain v. State, : AIR1959All315 submitted that the High Court has power to review and recall or alter its earlier decision in a criminal revision under S. 561-A Cri.P.C. In a recent decision of the Supreme Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Indian Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR632(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - We are of the view that the question referred to us should be answered in favour of the assessee, the question being whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the Tribunals decision that the assessee is entitled to double taxation relief of a sum of Rs. 2,23,399 is correct in law. We are here concerned with the assessment year 1947-48. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on banking business with its headquarters at Madras. It has a number of branches in different places. Travancore State was one of such places where it had a number of branches. In respect of the previous year ended December 31, 1946, the assessee returned a business income of Rs. 11,23,729. This amount included among other things the income of the Travancore branches. In Travancore the bank was separately assessed on a total income of Rs. 2,26,159. This income was arrived by the income-tax authorities in that State after declining a claim to deduction of Rs. 48,338 repres...
Tag this Judgment!FatheuddIn Ahmed and ors. Vs. State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad307
ORDER(1) The Durgah and Mosque at Kovalan, Chingleput Taluk, was founded more than two hundred years ago, by one Fakir Mohamed Arab. It is under the administration of a Board of Trustees and management of the Durgah and the Mosque is governed by a scheme made in suit, O.S. No. 27 of 1940 of the court of the subordinate Judge of Chingleput. The founder had four sons and it is not in dispute that the representatives of those four branches have the right to perform the festivals at the Dargah and in particular the Urz festival during the one month of the Muslim year. It is not also in dispute that the turn-holder is entitled to appropriate to himself on behalf of his branch, all the offering collected during that month. In 1922, the first branch had no male heirs and other branches excluded any representation of the first branch from such rights as that branch had upto then been in enjoyment of. A female heir in the first branch, one Syed Unnissa, instituted a suit, claiming the right to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »