Chennai Court September 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.
B. Gnanaraj Vs. A.M. Vedanayagam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad372
ORDER(1) A writ of prohibition is sought to prevent the first respondent, the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, from proceeding to consider certain subjects in the following circumstances. On 22-5-1965, the first respondent called for two special meetings and one ordinary meeting of the Panchayat Union Council. The two special meetings were for the purpose of electing the Vice Chairman and a member to the appointments committee. The ordinary meeting was to consider 55 subjects detailed in the agenda relating to matter of administration. Items 56 to 58 on the agenda related to the election of members to certain Committees and for the co-option of women members to the council. The first of the special meetings was held at 2 P. M. and the Vice Chairman was elected. The second special meeting was held at 3 P. M. and a member was elected as a member of the appointments Committee. When the ordinary meeting commenced, the very first subject on the agenda led to considerable controversy...
V. Savarimuthu Nadar, Kanyakumari Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad398; [1966]59ITR511(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. (1) The question referred to us under Sec. 60(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1960, is:'Whether the document No. 1342 of the Sub-Registrar's Office, Agasthiswaram, dated 15-6-1965 is a valid partition deed or a settlement attracting the provisions of S. 9(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act'.(2) The assessee belongs to Nagarcoil and has been assessed for the assessment year 1960-61, to agricultural income-tax on the income from certain lands covered by the document dated 15-6-1955 and described as a deed of partition. His contention that it was not a settlement deed was not accepted by the Revenue, which considered that the deed attracted Sec. 9(1) of the Act and proceeded to assess on that basis.(3) We have perused the deed. The parties are said to be Christians. Some of the properties were obtained by the assessee at a family partition and the rest of them acquired by him out of his own funds. The entire properties were divi...
Tayabali Mohammadali Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad200
Veeraswami, J. (1) The inclusion of a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the assessment was the subject-matter of a reference to this Court which was answered in favour of the assessee. Which disposing of that matter, this Court observed:'..... even though the Tribunal was entitled to hold that Rs. 10,000 constituted the income of the assessee, it was not income that could be assessed in the assessment year 1950-51'.This sum related to a credit entry for Rs. 10,000 dated 20-12-1948 in favour of the assessee's wife in his account books. The revenue proceeded on the basis that this credit was not proved to belong to the assessee's wife, treated is as income from the undisclosed source and assessed it. The decision of this Court in the earlier reference is to be found in Taibally Md. Ali Bahadur Bros., Madras v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1961) 74 MLW 634, and the question referred was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in treating the sum ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Speed-a-way (Private) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1965
Reported in: [1967]65ITR351(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in batteries and automobile partes. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1960-61, the corresponding accounting year having ended on 30th April, 1960. It filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 20,927 under the head of property and Rs. 24,828 under business. The assessee showed a loss of Rs. 24,828 for 1952-53 which was brought forward and set off against the income under the head of business. The Income-tax Officer after allowing the loss against the business income determined the total income at Rs. 20,927. On the carry-forward accounts, there was a substantial business loss and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,12,903 and Rs. 1,77,906 respectively. The assessee sought to deduct part of the unabsorbed depreciation under the head of business from the profits referable to property for the accounting year. This the Income-tax Officer declined to allow and with him the Appellat...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. Sundaram Finance ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad177
(1) This is a reference under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, made in pursuance of a writ of mandamus which was directed to issue by Srinivasan J, in W.P. No. 881 of 1960.* Tersely stated, the question is whether the instrument between the parties, viz., Messrs. Sundaram Finance (P.) Ltd., and the Punjab National Bank Ltd., which is termed an agreement for cash credit overdraft dated18-6-1957, is properly chargeable to duty as an agreement relating to the pledge of moveable property, falling under the scope of Art. 6 of Sch. I, formerly Art. 5 of Sch. 1-A, of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, or whether, as contended by learned counsel on behalf of Messrs. Sundaram Finance (P) Ltd., the instrument is merely an agreement falling under the scope of Art. 5 of Sch. I, and chargeable to duty under that Article.(2) In directing the issue of the writ, the learned Judge referred to the character of this document, and set forth verbatim the principal clause appearing therein. We may state that ...
S.K.M. Mohammad Mustafa Maracayar Vs. Udaianachi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad348
ORDER(1)This revision proceeding involves a question of some degree of interest, whether the permission to bid and set off granted to the mortgagee decreeholder in a pending sale of the hypotheca, could be granted without specifying any special grounds therefor, or whether it should be conceded only with caution and under special circumstances. The facts are not in dispute. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor who opposed the grant of the permission to bid and set off in this case. The respondent is an assignee-mortgagee-decreeholder and she has now obtained this permission. The court overruled the objections of the judgment debtor, and granted permission in a cryptic order, in which no special grounds are set forth. However, it seems to be a fact that the mortgagee decreeholder has been attempting to realise the debt by sale of these properties on several occasions, and that the last time that the sale was held, the sale was unsuccessful.(2) Certain very relevant aspects of ...
Ekambaranatha Chettiar (S.) Vs. Inspector of Factories
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ3Mad
Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Tirunelveli, convicting the petitioner, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, for violation of the provisions of the Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. According to the prosecution, he was the occupier and manager of a factory in door No. 16-A, Emperor Street, Tuticorin, and he failed to submit the annual returns in form 21 as per Rule 100 for the period ending 31 December 1963. P.W. 1, Inspector of Factories, on receipt of an anonymous complaint that the accused was running a factory, in violation of the provisions of the Act, inspected the premises on 5 September 1963, at 10-30 a.m. and found 27 persons working. They were stitching old gunny bags and making them fit for use. The accused was present. P.W. 3 was one of the workers. He has also given evidence about the nature of the work and that will be discussed later.2. It is not disputed by the accused now that 2...
S. Parthasarathi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad227
(1) The question under reference pertains to the character of the rental income received by each of the assessees for the assessment year 1960-61. There is no dispute as to the quantum of rental income. The assessees were each allotted a house by their father by a deed dated 12-7-1959. The revenue has throughout taken the view that the rental income from these constituted the individual income of each of the assessees and could not by any means be regarded as income of each of the assessees in the status of a Hindu undivided family. With this view of the terms of the said document, the Tribunal agreed. It however felt that a question of law did arise and at the instance of the assessees, it made a consolidated reference to us of the following question:"Whether the property obtained and held by the sons by the deed of 12-7-1959 was individually and exclusively for themselves or as Karthas of their Hindu individual families?"Though the question has been framed in that form, we have indi...
K.M. Viswanathan Pillai Vs. K.M. Shanmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad100
(1) These two appeals and the related Revision Proceeding involve questions of considerable interest and significance, relating to the development of the law under certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The facts are also of importance and they have to be stated precisely, and with some fullness, to clarify the situation in which the issues have arisen. In C.S.S. Motor Service Tenkasi, v. Madras State a Bench of Rajmannar, C.J. and VenkataramaAyyar, J., had occasion to consider at length, the rationale upon which the state sought to exercise the power of regulating motor transport, upon the permit system. The learned Judges pointed out that the State held the public streets and roads, only as a trustee on behalf of the public, who were entitled as beneficiaries to use the roadways as of right. The right of a citizen to carry on business in motor transport on public streets was within the protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The regulation of this business, under ...
V. S. Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR678(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - This reference is concerned with the validity of the certain orders made under section 34(1) (b) of the income-tax Act, 1922, relating to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The assessee is the son of V. S. Chettiappa Chettiar. Until 1939, they constituted a Hindu joint family. But in that they became divided and the partition of the family was accepted the revenue with effect from April 1, 1939. Thereafter, the father was assessee as an individual and the son in the status of the Hindu undivided and the son in the status of the Hindu undivided family. Chettiappa Chettiar died On May 17, 1941, leaving a will dated November 11, 1939 bequeathing his entire property to his son, Sivalingam Chettiar. Since the death of this father Sivalingam Chettiar submitted return one as an individual and the other as a Hindu undivided family, and they were assessed as such. He made similar returns of the assessment years here in question in response to notices under section 22(2) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »