Chennai Court August 1965 Judgments
R.S. Mani Vs. A. Palanimuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad16
(1) This revision arises under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, (Madras Act XXV of 1955), hereinafter referred as the Act, and is directed by the landlord against the order of Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli, granting time to the respondents, cultivating tenants, under the Act, for depositing of the rent found to be in arrears. It is the contention of Mr. D. Ramaswami Iyengar, learned counsel or the petitioner, that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant time for Officer had no jurisdiction to grant time for deposit, and that, even if he had jurisdiction, there has been no judicial exercise of discretion.(2) To appreciate the contention of behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to set out a few acts. The petitioner herein leased out the land in question, an extent of 1 acre and 80 cents bearing S. Nos. 711 and 712 in Nanjai Pugalur Village, Karur Taluk, to the Respondents herein under the registered lease...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Mudaliar Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ732
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Govindaswami Mudaliar was the respondent in M. C. No. 19 of 1965 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mayuram. The respondent filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C. and the Additional First Class Magistrate has ordered the petitioner to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 40 per month.2. The main contention urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the respondent having obtained a decree for maintenance in O. Section 162 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif 's Court, Mayuram, at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, she is not entitled to file a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The learned Advocate for the petitioner referred to the decision in In re, Subbramakkamah, 2 Weir Cr 615 where it was held that a decree for a monthly allowance for maintenance having been obtained in the High Court and that decree being still in force, the petitioner could not get a further and separate order for maintenance from the M...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Mani Alias R. Balasubramanyam Vs. A. Palanimuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ226
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision arises under the Madras Cultivating Tenants protection Act (Madras Act XXV of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and is directed by the landlord against the order of the Revenue Court, Tiruchirapalli grating time to the respondents, cultivating tenants under the Act, for depositing of the rent found to be in arrears. It is the contention of Mr. D. Ramaswami Iyengar, learned Counsel for the pettioner, that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant time for deposit and that, even if he had jurisdiction, there has been no judicial exercise of discretion.2. To appreciate the contentions on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to set out a few facts. The petitioner herein leased out the land in question, an extent of one acre and eighty cents bearing Survey Nos. 711 and 712 in Nanjai Pugalur village, karur taluk, to the respondents herein under the registered lease deed dated 13t...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambika Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ462
K. Veeraswami, J.1. For the assessment year 1949-50, a penalty of Rs. 32,000 as reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, with whom the Tribunal agreed, was levied on the assessee. The question directed to be referred to us under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 32,000 on the assessee-company was lawful. In the assessment of total profits of- the assessee for that year, certain additions had been made referable to under-statement of sales of yarn and waste which, as eventually found on appeals, amounted in the aggregate to Rs. 77,641. In the penalty proceedings, it has been found by all the authorities including the Tribunal that the assessee had concealed or kept back the profits to that extent, but as regards the quantum of tax sought to be affected, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as reduced by him, found it to be Rs. 32,098. Though one and a half times of that amount migh...
Tag this Judgment!Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. Ponnuswamy Nadar (Minor) Through Mother and Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ334
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the defendant Perumal Nadar, who died during the pendency of the appeal and whose legal representative Seethalakshmi Ammal has been brought on record against the judgment rendered in O.S. No. 37 of 1959, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, granting a decree to the respondent (Plaintiff) for partition and. separate possession of his half share in the suit properties.2. The respondent minor Ponnuswami through his mother and next friend Annapazham, filed the suit for partition and separate possession, on the ground that his mother was the legally wedded wife of the appellant (Perumal Nadar) that they were married in November, 1950, and were living as husband and wife that he was born during their wedlock in the month of March, 1958 and that due to the evil habits and waywardness, his father Perumal Nadar neglected to maintain his mother and abandoned him. His father was under the influence of his sister and sister's husband, with t...
Tag this Judgment!George Oakes Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR710(Mad)
.VEERASWAMI J. - The following questions have been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1992 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Income-tax Officer is right in withdrawing the rebate of super-tax on Rs. 3,68,750 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the computation of the rebate under the provisions of Part B of the Finance Act, 1956, is right in law ?'The circumstances leading to this reference may be shortly stated. The matter relates to the assessment year 1956-57, relevant to the previous year ended April 30, 1955. For that assessment year, the assessee, which is a subsidiary of Messrs. Amalgamations Ltd., returned a total income of Rs. 25,65,397. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income as Rs. 25,30,252. In assessing the tax, he withdrew rebate on a sum of Rs. 3,68,750, after overruling the assessees contention that no rebate could be withdrawn in respect of a sum of Rs. 68,750 in the partic...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambika Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR795(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byVENKATADRI J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The questions of law on which the Tribunal has been directed to state a case are as follow :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 70,641 to the assessable income of the assesse ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim this item of Rs. 70,641 as an admissible deduction in computing the profits of the assessee under section 10(2)(x) of the Income-tax Ac ?'The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in cotton spinning in Vellakkinar, Coimbatore district. The mill was established in the year 1936. It had an installed capacity of 11,200 spindles. It had a labour force of 500 besides the regular staff. During the year ending 30th September, 1948, the assessee disclosed a turnover of Rs. 24,22,186. The Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanambika Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR802(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byVEERASWAMI J. - For the assessment year 1949-50, a penalty of Rs. 32,000, as reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, with whom the Tribunal agreed, was levied on the assessee. The question directed to be referred to us under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 32,000 on the assessee-company was lawful. In the assessment of the total profits of the assessee for that year, certain additions had been made referable to understatement of sales of yarn and waste which, as eventually found on appeals, amounted in the aggregate to Rs. 77,641. In the penalty proceedings, it has been found by all the authorities including the Tribunal that the assessee had concealed or kept back the profits to that extent, but as regards the quantum of tax sought to be affected, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as reduced by him, found it to be Rs. 32,098. Thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR256(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the question that arises is, whether a certain receipt, which was included in the taxable income for the assessment year 1958-59, was of a capital or revenue nature. That it was of a casual and non-recurring nature was also raised but it is not reiterated before us. The Tribunal held, differing from the view of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, that the receipt was of a capital nature.One Arunachalam Chettiar died on February 23, 1938, leaving a considerable estate, including properties in Ceylon. He was married three times. By his first wife he had a son with a similar name, who died on July 9, 1934, leaving his second widow, Umayal Achi. His mother, Valami Achi, had died long before him. Arunchalam Chettiar (senior) left him surviving his two widows, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and also his last will and testament by which he nominated his widows a...
Tag this Judgment!Selvambal Ammal Vs. Venkatarama Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad460
(1) This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder against the order of the courts below allowing the application E. A. No. 406 of 1961 filed by the judgment-debtor-respondent for recalling the delivery warrant and for dismissing the E. P. No. 332 of 1961 filed by the decree-holder for possession.(2) The appellant decree-holder filed a suit O. S. 518 of 1962 for possession and for past and future mesne profits against the defendant. The suit was dismissed. But on appeal a decree was granted on 4-1-1961 in A. S. 281 of 1957. The decree-holder filed E. P. 332 of 1961 and delivery of items 2 and 3 was ordered on 23-9-1961. The plaintiff in pursuance of an agreement between the parties executed a release deed relinquishing all his rights on 22-3-1961. The present application E. A. 406 of 1961 out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was filed by the judgment-debtor for cancellation of the delivery warrant and for dismissal of the execution petition.(3) The trial court all...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »