Chennai Court July 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.
East India Corporation Ltd., Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad7; [1966]61ITR16(Mad)
(1) This reference relates to the propriety of an order under S. 23-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 and a direction given by the Tribunal under S. 34(3) of the same Act to re-assess the shareholders as a consequence of S. 23-A proceedings.(2) The asseseee was originally a private limited company incorporated in July 1942, but converted into a public limited company on 25-8-1948. For the assessment year 1954-55, for which the previous year ended on 31-12-1953, the Income-tax Officer found that it was not a company in which the public were substantially interested. On that view, he directed a sum of Rs. 2,43,588 being the undistributed portion of the assessable income of the company during the previous year as computed for income-tax purposes and reduced by the amount of income-tax and super-tax payable by the assessee in respect thereof should be deemed to have been distributed as dividends among the share-holders of the assessee as on 30-6-1954, the date of the general meeting at which t...
D. Balasubramania Mudaliar Vs. Doraikannu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad154; 1966CriLJ547; (1965)2MLJ549
ORDER(1) Petition by one D. Balasubramania Mudaliar to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chingleput, dismissing his petition under S.101 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, for delivery of possession of Sri Kailasanathar temple, Big Natham, Chigleput. The petitioner has been appointed as a trustee of Sri Kailasanathar temple for a period of five years from 21-9-1960. He filed a petition under S. 101 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, for delivery of possession of the said temple. The first respondent is the sister and the second respondent is the husband of the third respondent who claimed to be the hereditary trustees of the temple. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed possession only on behalf of the third respondent. But the claim of the third respondent as hereditary trustee was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board in O.A. 120 of 1960 on its file as evidenced by Ex. ...
Kandappa Gounder Vs. Official Receiver, Coimbatore and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad204
ORDER(1) This is a revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act by a mortgagee-alliance whose mortgage has been held to be a fraudulent preference by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore differing from the learned Subordinate judge of Erode, at the instance of the Official Receiver in the insolvency of one Palaniswami. The mortgage deed in question, Ex A. 3, is for Rs. 11,000 and executed on 26-6-1953. In the petition under Ss. 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, it is alleged that the next day, two other mortgage in favour of the sons of the alience each for Rs. 11000 had been executed. In the counter affidavit field by the alience, there was no denial of the fact of the execution of the mortgages. He only affirmed that all the mortgages were for proper consideration and in good faith for discharging the prior and binding debts. The petition for adjudication was filed on 30-7-1953. It may be stated that the mortgage deed was actually registered only on 4-7-19...
Pl. Ct. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. A. Rm. A. L. A. Muthu Veerappa Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad406; (1965)2MLJ499
(1) This is a revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code from an order dismissing the petitioner's application for rateable distribution under section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.Though the petitioner can pursue his claim by way of a suit, as this revision petition has been pending in this Court from 1962, and the question for decision is a simple one, it not being disputed that the matter would otherwise come under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the faintly put forward preliminary objection is overruled.(2) The petitioner obtained a decree against the defendants in O. S. No. 44 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai, for execution, and filed therein, E. P. No. 25 of 1960 on 2-2-1960 for attachment and sale of certain immovable properties. Attachment was ordered on 5-2-1960, and order for sale was made on 19-7-1960, the properties to be proclaimed and sold on 5-9-1960. It is seen from the records of execution that there was no sale, a...
K.S. Gopalaswami Iyer and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC854(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. In the first three petitions, the petitioner is the same and the assessments relate to the years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59. In W.P. No. 1409 of 1962, the assessment relates to 1958-59. In this case, there was a separate assessment for part of the year, for the business was in the hands of a partnership. The business passed into the hands of the sole proprietor for the rest of the year and in that regard an assessment was made, which has led to W.P. No. 1410 of 1962. In W. P. No. 1434 of 1963, the assessment relates to 1956-57.2. The point, involved is the same in all these cases. The petitioners are all persons carrying on business in sales of articles of food or drink sold in a hotel or restaurant. Tax was levied at the rate of 4 1/2 pies in the rupee under the proviso to Section 3(i)(b) of the Act as against the normal rate of 3 pies in the rupee, which every dealer had to pay on his total turnover for the year. The first proviso to Section 3(i)(b), as it then st...
P. Doraikannu Vs. the Proprietor, Hotel Savoy, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad201
(1) The question that requires an answer in this revision petition is whether the Payment of Wages Authority has jurisdiction to award wages for the period during which the workman was suspended pending enquiry into the charges. The petitioner was employed by the respondent as a cashier on a monthly salary of Rs.100 in addition to free boarding etc. By an order dated 1-3-1961, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 3-3-1961, pending enquiry into certain charges against him, the details of which need not be set out here. But as no enquiry was started, the petitioner presented an application before the Payment of Wages Authority under S. 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,680 as representing his wages upto that date. The Payment of Wages Authority, while rejecting the petitioner's claim for some months on the ground of limitation, directed the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs. 1,100 ...
S.T.S. Swaminathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad328
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question on which our opinion is to be expressed is 'whether the assessment of excess realisation of S 8,200 on the sale of house property No. 166 Kotha Road, Taiping as revenue profit (receipt) is valid in law'. The matter relates to the assessment year 1958-59, the accounting period having ended on May 31, 1957. The assessee was the karta of a joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and his two sons Palaniappa and Chidambaram. The family was doing business in money lending and dealing also in property under the vilasam 'S. T. S.' at Taiping in Malaya. On June 1, 1951, there was a partition of the family assets at which the assessee was allotted some house properties, one inam, deposits with Chettiar firms bank and cash balances in the Taiping business. On June 8, 1951, the assessee opened his own book of account, with the assets and liabilities which has formed the business assets of the erstwhile family. It appears that from 1951, the assessee no longer acquir...
S.V. Ramakrishna Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Rajabu Fathima Bukari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad187; [1965]58ITR288(Mad); (1965)2MLJ338
1. The question involved is the admissibility of the evidence of one Sri Marar, relating to the initials, which he is alleged to have affixed on 17-8-1957 in some account books (Exs. D-24 and D-25), which he perused in his capacity as Income-tax Officer, Second Circle, Madras. The question arises because of the provision of S. 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 and S. 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961. Section 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961, (Act 43 of 1961), was omitted from the statue by S. 32 of the Finance Act of 1964. Another question which is involved is whether the prohibition, which existed against the Income-tax Officer giving evidence under the provisions of S. 54 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 and S. 137 of the Income-tax Act of 1961, still continues, having regard to the provisions of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.(2) The facts necessary for the disposal of the questions are these. Mrs. Buhari, the first defendant in the suit, C.S. No. 43 of 1962, produced her accou...
The Income-tax Officer, Madras Vs. P. Ramaratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad164; 1966CriLJ549; [1965]58ITR297(Mad); (1965)2MLJ336
ORDER(1) Petition by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras, to revise the order of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, overruling his objections and directing him to produce the documents summoned by the court. The documents were summoned at the instance of the accused in the case who actually produced them. The accused are prosecuted for offences of criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy etc. They were employees under Dinathanthi and their case is that on account of their producing the documents and giving information to the Income-tax authorities the present criminal case has been filed against them. Thus the accused in the case rely on the documents to prove the motive for the prosecution being launched against them.(2) Section 137 of the Income-tax Act 1961, as it stood would have been an obstacle in the way of the court issuing summons for the production of the documents. But the said section has been omitted under the finance Act of 1964, which has however amended ...
Palaniswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad362
(1) The subject matter of challenge in this writ appeal is the notification, dated 21-8-1962, issued under Section 60 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). An extent of one acre 31/2 cents in S. No. 50(6) belonging to the appellants was notified for acquisition for the purpose of house-sites for Harijans under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That notification also included a direction under Section 17(4) of the Act to dispense with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act in view of the urgency of the case. This was followed up by a declaration under section 6 of the Act. It was stated therein that possession of land should be taken immediately after the publication of the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act. The appellants attacked these proceedings on various grounds but they need not be set out here, as they have confined themselves in this appeal to one objection. The notification under Section 6 of the Act is assailed on the ground that the prior notif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›