Chennai Court January 1967 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.
S.P. Subbiah Vs. Pr. Pr. Sp. Periakaruppan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas270(Mad)
ORDERED that leave be given to the official liquidator to makea call of Rs.................. per share on all the contributories of the saidcompany............ And it is ordered that each contributory do, on or before the.........dayof.................. 19....... pay to the official liquidator............the amount duefrom such contributory in respect of such call.' 9. It is only after such an order is made by the company court that the official liquidator has the power to enforce the call and ask for an order for payment of the call amount due from the contributory. Forms Nos. 106 and 108 appended to the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with rules 240 and 241 make it very clear that the liquidator is not entitled to any interest prior to the order of this court giving leave to him to make a call. This is the rule of law which has been precisely laid down by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Pars Ram Brij Kishore v. Jagraon Trading Syndicate. No doubt, this was under th...
Muthiah Nattar Vs. N.S. Ibrahim Rowther Alias N.S. Mohammed Ibrahim an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ190
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The third party who was sought to be impleaded by the petitioner-tenant, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, in the Revenue Court is the petitioner in this Court. He will be referred to in this judgment as the third party. The tenant's original application was for restoration of certain lands of which he alleged he was forcibly dispossessed from by the then only respondent, hereinafter referred to as the landlord. The tenant's application for such restoration was under Section 4(5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. This application was filed on 17th July, 1962, on the ground that he was wrongfully dispossessed from such lands on 14th July, 1962. Under Section 4(5), a petition for restoration has to be filed within two months from the date of dispossession. To this application, the landlord filed a counter on September 19, 1962, which by itself was beyond two months from the date of dispossession, inter alia alleging that the tenant...
O.A.P. Andiappan Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ391
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These two petitions to quash two separate orders, one of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other of the Income-tax Officer relating respectively to assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 turn on construction of Article III of the Agreement for relief from or avoidance of double taxation between India and Ceylon contained in Notification No. S.R.O. 456, dated 6th February, 1957. The petitioner has been assessed as an individual resident and ordinarily resident in India, on his only source of income from a grocery business carried on under the name and style of O.A. Paramasivam Pillai and Sons at 128, 4th Cross Street, Colombo. The income for the first year was determined in both the countries to be Rs. 39,473 and for the next year Rs. 39,047. The Ceylon authorities who assessed the petitioner under the provisions of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932 certified the income-tax payable for the first year to be Rs. 5,919 and for the second year to be Rs. 5,249. The...
O. A. P. Andiappan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR209(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These two petitions to quash two separate orders, one of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other of the Income-tax Officer, relating respectively to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, turn on the construction of article III of the Agreement for Relief from or Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Ceylon contained in Notification No. S. R. O. 456 dated February 6, 1957. The petitioner had been assessed as an individual resident and ordinary resident in India on his only source of income from a grocery business carried on under the name and style of O. A. Paramasivam Pillai and Sons at 128, 4th Cross Street, Colombo. The income for the first year was determined in both the countries to be Rs. 39,473 and for the next year Rs. 39,047. The Ceylon authorities who assessed the petitioner under the provisions of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance, 1932, certified the income-tax payable for the first year to be Rs. 5,919 and for the second year to be Rs. 5,249....
Indian Bank Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad231; [1968]67ITR553(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) In these references, the main question for consideration is as to the applicability, to the facts and circumstances, of the first proviso to S. 8 and the two explanations thereto in the Income-tax Act 1922. The assessee is a well known banking company with its registered office at Madras. It holds securities issued by the then Mysore Durbar of the value of about 21/2crores of rupees as in 1950 and it is common ground there has been no addition thereafter to the securities. The income from these securities was income-tax free, but liable to super tax. For the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60, the profits or losses on the purchase and sale of such securities, among others, were taken into account in computing the total income of the assessee under 'business'.In respect of the first two years, the assessments were reopened under section 34, on the view that the 'proviso and the Explanations thereto to S. 8 had been over-looked by the Revenue and these provisions were ...
Kuttisamy thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ503
K. Srinivasan, J.1. Nine accused persons, including the appellants were tried for various offences such as rioting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the causing of the death of one Duraipandi. In respect of the charges of the attempt to murder and of murder the accused other than the appellants were charged with constructive liability by reason of Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that there was no unlawful assembly, and that, except for the first three accused who are the appellants here, the charges were rot proved as against the remaining accused, and they were accordingly acquitted. The sixth charge was under Section 302, Indian Penal Code against the first accused. That was found established and he was convicted and he stands sentenced to the extreme penalty. In the case of the first and the second accused, the charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code in so far as their attack upon ...
K. R. S. R. Ramanathan Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR574(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The petitioner in the status of a non-resident was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 on his share of profits accruing in a partnership firm carrying on business in Ceylon. For the first year, his foreign income was determined to be Rs. 10,540 and for the second year, Rs. 6500. Demands were made on the petitioner in respect of the two years on April 30, 1953. Subsequently, coercive proceedings have been taken against the petitioner for the recovery of the arrears of tax. This petitioner is to quash those proceedings, the petitioner relying on the second proviso to section 45.It seems to us that, so far as arrears of tax for the two years referable to the petitioners foreign income are concerned, the petitioner is entitled to rely on that proviso. It is not disputed that there is prohibition or restriction in Ceylon in respect of bringing money from there is into the taxable territories. The proviso shows that, so long as such prohibition...
S. Vs. P. N. Sithambara Nadar Sons V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR45(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The facts relevant to this petition sufficiently appear in S. V. P. N. Sithambara Nadar & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and need not be reiterated in any detail. The petitioner was a firm carrying on business in Virudhunagar, and was assessed to Income-tax and excess profits tax for the periods commencing from September 1, 1939. In computing the profits for the period between September 1, 1939, and March 31, 1946, there was a controversy as to the precise process of computation which was the subject-matter of a reference in S. V. P. N. Sithambara Nadar & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It was there decided that the petitioner was for purposes of the Excess profits Tax Act, 1940, entitled to carry forward a total deficiency of Rs. 48,389 as at the end of the period, January 31, 1940, to January 30, 1941. The particular reference to this court itself, however, covered only the period January 31, 1941, to January 30, 1942. In view of the reduction in the assessme...
Yasodammal and anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad294; (1968)1MLJ249
(1) The plaintiffs in the lower Court are the appellants in this appeal. The suit has been filed by them to establish their title to the suit property, house and ground No. 12, New St., Nungambakkam, Madras, against the first defendant who claims rights over the same in pursuance of an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiffs and the first defendant to sell the suit property to the latter. The brief facts which led up to the appeal may be stated.(2) The property was purchased under Ex. A-1 on 29-8-1948 by the first plaintiff from one Pachai Pillai and Purushotham for a sum of Rs. 6,500. The parties are near relatives and their relationship can be stated with reference to Kullammal to whom frequent reference will have to be made in the course of this judgment. Kullammal's daughter is the first plaintiff and her husband is the second plaintiff. Pachai Pillai and Purushotham from whom the first plaintiff purchased the suit property under Ex. A-1 are the sons of ...
Sri Hari Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. the First Income-tax Officer, Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1967
Reported in: AIR1967Mad427; [1967]65ITR348(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) The petitioner is a company registered on 4-12-1954 and if commenced production on 1-9-1956. It has adopted the calendar year for purposes of accounting. For the assessment year 1957-58, it submitted a return on 12-3-1959. Actually it made a trading profit of Rs. 64131 for that year. But it claimed Rs. 56280 as depreciation allowance and Rs. 1,34,317 as development rebate so that its returns showed a loss. The first respondent by an order of his dated 18-11-1961, considered the return as null and void on the view that it was not filed within the assessment year and that in view of the provisions of S. 22(2-A) of the Income tax Act 1922, which according to him applied to the case, the loss returned by the return of the petitioner would have to be ignored and not carried forward. The petition is to quash the order. There is a further prayer that this court should direct the first respondent to set off the loss of prior years in the assessment for 1957-58.(2) In support ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »