Chennai Court April 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. Sambandam and anr. Vs. G. Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad183; 1966CriLJ554; (1965)2MLJ380
ORDER(1) These petitions have been filed by one Sambandam and Kalyani (1) against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Mayuram granting permission to the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent to file a complaint against the petitioners under Ss. 497 and 498, I.P.C. and (2) to quash the proceedings in C.C. 20 of 1964 taken on the complaint filed by the said power of attorney.(2) The objection raised in the first petition is that the power of attorney holder was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the respondent Natesan, the husband of the second petitioner's daughter, and the objection raised in the second petition is that, the incompetent institution of the complaint has made it a nullity and therefore the proceeding is liable to be quashed.(3) The learned First Class Magistrate apparently granted permission in this case to file the complaint without notice to the accused. The order is very cryptic and reads 'Permitted to file the complaint'. Under S....
B. Kalyanasundaram, Proprietor, Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad87; (1966)IILLJ430Mad
ORDER(1) The petitioner, the employer, had occasion to reprimand one of his employees. The employee turned abusive. The employer placed the worker under suspension and gave a memorandum of charges to him. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed the second respondent-Union asking the secretary of the Union to be present at the enquiry into the charge. The secretary did not reply immediately but sometime later declined to be present stating that it was a matter of domestic concern. In the meantime, apparently, on the complaint of the worker that he had not been given employment, the Union contacted the Labour Officer. Finally, the matter reached the Government and two questions were referred for adjudication to the Labour court. Before the Labour court, however, the petitioner did not appear. There was an ex parte award directing the reinstatement of the worker and awarding back wages to him from the date of his non-employment. This order was passed on 31-10-1962.The petitioner has come to ...
Kaloogate Estate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1965
Reported in: [1973]87ITR215(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee is a partnership engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea in Ceylon. It had purchased a rubber estate in the year 1941 and had been deriving some income from rubber trees in the years earlier to the assessment year, which is 1954-55. During the account year which ended on March 31, 1954, the assessee, in its return of income, claimed a deduction of Rs. 15,000 as the cost of fuel. Admittedly, fuel had been extracted from the estate of the assessee by weeding out 30 acres of rubber plantation. The sum of Rs. 15,000 had been credited to the account headed ' Estates and Properties ', and also, went in reduction of the capital value of the estate entered in this account. The Income-tax Officer took the view that there was nothing to establish that this sum of Rs. 15,000 represented the value of useless rubber trees and that the claim to the deduction of Rs. 15,000 as cost of the fuel resulted in a disproportionate increase in the cost of fuel for the manufact...
C. T. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR690(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on a money-lending business at Madras and at Muar in the Federated Malay States. Through its karta, the assessee was a partner in a firm, each of the partners of which had, under the terms of the partnership deed, to contribute a capital of Rs. 10,000. The partnership deed further provided that the partners could advance moneys to the partnership to the extent necessary, which was to bear interest at 6 per cent. per annum. The money-lending business at Muar was remitting moneys from time to time by bank drafts. These drafts were endorsed in favour of the partnership firm, and the amounts were credited to the loan account of the assessee. These were treated as advances to the partnership. In respect of these advances the partnership firm paid interest, and this quantum of interest was taxed as income from the money-lending business of the assessee in the earlier assessment years.The assessee had another account, a current...
Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Ltd. Vs. C. Hariprasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad161; (1965)2MLJ477
ORDER(1) Application by the plaintiff to expunge certain words, passages and sentences from the affidavit of the respondent filed in Appln. No. 1838 of 1964 in C.S. 65 of 1964 on the file of this court, as being scandalous, irrelevant, unnecessary and calculated to prejudice and embarrass the trial of the suit.(2) Sri G. Ramaswami, appearing for the respondent, took a preliminary objection that Order VI, Rule 16 C.P.C., can be invoked only in respect of pleadings and that there is no corresponding provision in respect of affidavits in Order XIX C.P.C. Order XIX, Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court corresponds to Order VI, Rule 16 C.P.C. Order XXVIII Rule 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that the court or judge may order to be struck out from any affidavit only matter which is scandalous. Sri G. Ramaswami stressed on the fact that there is no corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code and that even in England the said rule is confined only to 'scandalous' mat...
S. Govindan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad263
ORDER1. The question that stands referred to us under section 66(2) of the Act is:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 54,527, Rs. 42,000 and Rs. 23,723, respectively in the assessment years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54?'The assessee was a dealer in oilcake and cattlefood in Ceylon. His assessments for the three years in question were completed on 30-1-1954, 31-3-1954 and 31-5-1954. The accounts of the assesee were found to be defective, and applying the proviso to Section 13 of the Act, the Income tax Officer made additions of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 22,000 and Rs. 7,000 to the returned incomes. These additions were made by estimating the gross profit. The assessments were taken up in appeal. The assessments were taken up in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept the view that the proviso to Section 13 was attracted and remanded the case to the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer examined the books in greater detail. At ...
Venkitammal and anr. Vs. Muthukrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad196
(1) This Second Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 11th day of March, 1965 Friday, the 26th day of March 1965 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following judgment:(2) The question raised in this appeal looks to me is settled law, but, as considerable argument has been directed in the matter, I shall deal with it in greater detail than is strictly necessary. The contention raised is that while daughters succeeding to their father, as a class, take the estate as joint tenants with rights to survivorship inter se, daughters, succeeding to their mother, inherit the estate only as tenants in common, without rights of survivorship inter se; and for this proposition reliance is placed particularly upon certain observations in Karuppai v. Sankaranarayanan Chetty, (1904) ILR 27 Mad 300 (FB).(3) The facts which have given rise to this controversy and must be taken as final for the purpose of this second appeal may be briefly set out. The pr...
S.P. Narayaaswami Pillai Vs. Dhanakoti Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad220
(1) The plaintiff whose suit for the specific performance of an agreement for sale in his favour of a house property has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, North Arcot, reversing the decree for specific performance given by the learned Subordinate Judge is the appellant before me.(2) The material facts of the case are not very much in dispute and may be briefly set out. The agreement for sale is evidenced by Ex. A. 1, dated 23-6-1958 where under the defendant, the admitted owner of the property has received an advance of Rs. 500, the price fixed for the conveyance being Rs. 9,700. The contract for sale had to be completed within 3 months, the balance of price namely, Rs. 9200 being payable by 23-9-1958 at the time of the registration of the sale, expenses of the execution and registration of the sale deed to be borne by the purchaser, namely, the plaintiff. There was the usual default clause providing for the forfeiture of the advance in the event of the purchaser failing t...
S. Rajam, Proprietor, Murray and Co. Vs. the Indian Union, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ251
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The controversy in this appeal by the plaintiff is as to the rate of commission at which he is entitled to be paid for certain auction sales of evacuee properties in Madras, Bangalore, Mysore, Ootacamund and Coonoor, which he held in five batches between 22nd February, and 26th June, 1955, on behalf of the defendant. He has been paid at one per cent. of the sale proceeds in respect of the first batch of sales held between 22nd February, and 26th February, 1955, at Madras. With regard to the other batches of sales between 7th April, and 16th April, 1955, 26th April, and 1st May, 1955, 9th May and 13th May, 1955 and 26th June, and 27th June, 1955 the defendant paid the plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 7,324.56 against a claim of Rs. 23,098.35. The suit is to recover the difference, the main ground of the appellant being that there was no reason to make a distinction between the sales made prior to 1st April, 1955, and those subsequent thereto, as the work involved in respe...
V. Ramanathan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR293(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - Of the two questions referred to us under section 66(2) of the Act, one has been withdrawn by the assessee and the surviving question is :'Whether the levy of penalty of Rs. 11,000 on the assessee-family for 1953-54 under section 28(1) (a) of the Act was valid in la ?'The facts are these :For the year in question, the assessment on the assessee as a Hindu undivided family was completed under section 23(4) of the Act on January 12, 1954. The late karta of the family, Vriddachala Reddiar, failed to comply with the notice served upon him under section 22(2) of the Act. Two proceedings were simultaneously set on foot, one of which was an application under section 27 of the Act for cancelling the assessment. This application was dismissed by the Income-tax Officer on July 2, 1954. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was also dismissed on August 10, 1955. Simultaneously with these proceedings, an appeal in so far as the quantum of income determined on best of j...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›