Chennai Court January 1966 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Coimbatore Salem Transport (Pri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: [1966]61ITR480(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The assessee is private limited company and is a transport operator running a fleet of stage carriages. It runs also an out agency lorry service to certain places. It has been assessed to tax for the accounting years ended September 30, 1955, to September 30, 1958, on its business income. Before the departmental authorities, the assessee unsuccessfully contended that certain sums of money received in each of the years either by the drivers and conductors of the buses or later by its manager and cashier did not constitute business income, that deductions should be allowed of certain amounts in each year as expenditure incurred by payment of mamool and what was described as way side expenses and that disallowance of certain sums out of larger amounts claimed to have been paid as interest on borrowings for business purposes was not justified. The Tribunal on appeal by the assessee found in its favour on all these matters. This reference of the following questions comes bef...
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras Vs. K.R. Subbaier Tape Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad129; (1966)IILLJ676Mad
(1) These appeals are directed respectively against the judgments of Jagadisan J. in W.P. No. 888 of 1959 and Veeraswami J. in W.P. 619 of 1959, petition filed under Art. 226 of the constitution. They were heard together since common questions have arisen in them for decision.(2) In the first case, the petitioner firm ran a factory, from 1942 for manufacturing tapes, lampwicks, etc., with more than 50 persons in its employ. At an anterior stage, the firm disputed the fact that the Employees Provident Funds Act 1952 (Act 19 of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply to the firm and the question was settled only when the Central Government passed an order on 29-9-1958 under S. 19-A of the Act holding that the Act applied. This decision was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. 888 of 1959 but Jagadisan J. held that point against the petitioner. It is not dispute that the petitioners concern is covered by the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, Madras, by an orde...
Raval and Co. Vs. K.G. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad57; (1966)2MLJ63
(1) W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a reference made by one of us(srinivasan, J). It was a proceeding in prohibition by Messrs Raval and Co. (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras(4th respondent) from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. 1816 of 1963 and Appn. No. 2443 of 1963 in C.S. 163 of 1962, in which certain clearly inter-linked question are involved. Our learned brother(Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this court as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, has been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies both as regards the fixation of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter of eviction and the grounds for eviction; while certain...
Raval and Co. and anr. Vs. K.G. Ramachandran (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ68
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a Reference made by one of us (K. Srinivasan, J.). It was a proceeding in Prohibition, of Messrs. Raval & Company (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras (fourth respondent), from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. No. 1816 of 1963 and Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962, in which certain closely inter-linked questions are involved. Our learned brother (Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this Court, as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, had been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies, both as regards the fixation1 of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter...
Chidambara thevar Vs. T. Vedayya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad164
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal, and the dispute relates to a right of pathway cutting across his land and marked in red A B C in exhibit A-1, the plan prepared by the commissioner who was appointed to inspect, the site and submit a report with a view to have a proper and adequate appreciation of the points in controversy. The defendants, who are resisting the suit, claim the right of pathway, their case being that the residents of various villages on the west of the Government poramboke cart track marked as G P G T in the plan running in S. No. 49/11 have been going from the west to the Sethu Rastha on the east. The various portions of the pathway have been marked red in the commissioner's plan. Some portions of the pathway pass through Government poramboke land in which a tank exists called Ayyanar Thidal near Sannathi Road cutting Sethu Rastha. As observed earlier that portion of the pathway ABC which is the connecting link on either side of the pathway (betw...
N.V. Radhiah and Bros. Vs. Employee's State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad111; (1966)IILLJ235Mad
1. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in an application filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,402 being the employee's contribution for the period 1-7-1958 to 28-7-1962 and an application filed by the appellant for declaration that he is not liable to pay the special contribution to the Corporation(2) The appellant is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture of iron safes. It is common ground that the manufacture of the iron safes is being carried on in Kondithope, while the painting work is being done in another place in Govindappa Naicken Street. The appellant contended that the workmen employed in the painting work should not be taken into consideration, when deciding the question whether the place of the manufacture of the iron safe was a factory or not. On the other hand, the Corporation contended that both the manufacturing place situated in Kondithope as well a...
Chidambara thevar Vs. T. Vedayya thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ110
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal, and the dispute relates to a right of pathway cutting across his land and marked in red A B C in exhibit A-1, the plan prepared by the commissioner who was appointed to inspect, the site and submit a report with a view to have a proper and adequate appreciation of the points in controversy. The defendants, who are resisting the suit, claim the right of pathway, their case being that the residents of various villages on the west of the Government poramboke cart track marked as G P G T in the plan running in S. No. 49/11 have been going from the west to the Sethu Rastha on the east. The various portions of the pathway have been marked red in the commissioner's plan. Some portions of the pathway pass through Government poramboke land in which a tank exists called Ayyanar Thidal near Sannathi Road cutting Sethu Rastha. As observed earlier that portion of the pathway ABC which is the connecting link on either side of...
R.S. Jhavar Vs. P. Thanicakchala Gramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ38
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Revision Petition raises a question of Court-fee in the following circumstances. The plaintiff filed a suit to enforce specific performance of the unperformed portion of the agreement of sale in respect of properties of an extent of 28.46 acres belonging to the 1st and 2nd defendants, father and son respectively It is alleged in the plaint that even in 1956, 12 acres 57 cents out of 28 acres 46 cents have been transferred to the possession of the 2nd defendant, under some arrangement between him and his father, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the 2nd defendant executed a sale deed in respect of 12 acres 57 cents in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in the plaint alleges that a specific performance of the contract was done by both the father and the son in respect of the 12 acres 57 cents. The present suit was filed for specific performance of the unperformed portion of the contract dated 31st December, 1960, in respect of 15 acres 89 cents. The pl...
T.K. Appu Nair Vs. Earnest and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad262; 1967CriLJ903
ORDER(1) Petitioner T.K. Appu Nair seeks to revise the order of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 18728 of 1962 on his file dismissing the petition to convert the Calendar Case into a P.R.C. Case. The petitioner's grievance is that the offence committed by the accused is really one under Section 220 I.P.C. which is tribal by a court of session and hence the case should have been converted into a P.R.C. case. The case was initiated on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. According to the averments in the private complaint, the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 342 and 325 with S. 34 I.P.C. Three witnesses were examined before the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, P.W. 1 is the complainant. P.W. 2 John deposed that he went and enquired at the police station at the request of the complainant's wife and he does not personally know the acts committed by the accused. P.W. 3 is the doctor who examined the complainant. His evidence shows tha...
Santharam, Minor by Next Friend, Saradambal Ammal Vs. S. Ramanuja Redd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ546
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings in O.S. No. 1 of 1946, on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, a suit instituted by the appellant herein against the respondent herein. The appellant is the illegitimate son of the respondent. The decree was originally passed by the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, on 7th February, 1947 and it was confirmed by the High Court on 2nd February, 1951. Long after the decree was confirmed by the High Court in the year 1951, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (LXXVIII of 1956) came into effect. The appellant herein filed E.P. No. 196 of 1962, out of which this appeal arises for arrears of maintenance for the period 17th October, 1961 to 17th June, 1962. This application was resisted by the respondent herein as not maintainable on the ground that on the date of presentation of the present E.P. the minor Santharam, i.e., the appellant herein, became a major as he completed 18 years of age on 31st August, 1961 and further he can...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »