Chennai Court December 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.
T.K. Saravana Perumal Vs. Shishikana Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ562
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein, under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, for a decree of divorce, on the ground that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty.2. The appellant herein was first appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1943 at Poona and later was transferred to the Local Audit Office at Bombay. At the time of the petition, he was employed in the Military Accounts Department, Government of India, as an auditor in the Local Audit, Defence Accounts Department. While the appellant was working at Bombay, on 2nd April, 1953 the marriage between the appellant who hails from Madras, and the respondent who hails from Bengal, was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act (III of 1872), since repealed by Act XLIII of 1954, and the marriage was registered at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Bombay, on that date. T...
Amarjothi Pictures Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR755(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The assessee claimed as deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, a sum of Rs. 13,376 as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for purposes of the business. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, who was of the view that the sum was not expended for commercial expediency. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, agreed with the assessee, being of opinion that the expenditure was a narmal feature and tended to bring a better market for the picture. The Tribunal reversed that order and that is how the reference arises under section 66(2).The question referred is :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 13,376 out of the expenses incurred by the petitioner in connection with the Silver Jubilee urn of picture Kalyana Parisu is permissible under the provisions of section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act ?'The matter relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is a partn...
Mohamedaly Sarefaly and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Iii ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR807(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This petition under article 226 of the Constitution is to direct the first respondent, who is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras-34, to desist from taking recovery proceedings pursuant to his notice dated May 17, 1966, under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner. the petitioner had filed Write Petition No. 2328 of 1966, for an identical relief on certain grounds, which was dismissed by this court by an order dated August 10, 1967. In the present petition the petitioner takes certain additional grounds, namely, that section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, violates article 14, that section 226(3)(x) is beyond the ambit of entry 82 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and also that section 226 suffers from excessive delegation. Two other grounds relate to the legality of the certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer, the main ground of petitioner being that the amount for which the certificate was issued ...
Ganesh Babu, Minor and anr. Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad416
1. The first respondent to the second appeal filed a suit O. S. 55 of 1952 against the fourth respondent herein and obtained a decree on 31-3-53. On 12-6-53, the 1st respondent filed E. P. 137 of 1953 for executing the said decree. However during the pendency of that application the 4th respondent herein was adjudged insolvent in I. P. 13 of 1953. In view of this adjudication E. P. 137 of 1953, was dismissed on 22-6-1954.Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E. A. 333 of 1954 in I. P. 13 of 1953, and on 5-2-1955, obtained leave of the Court to execute the decree against the 4th respondent's share in the suit property. Subsequently on 5-5-1955, the 1st respondent filed E. P. 242 of 1955 and attached the one-fourth undivided interest of the 4th respondent in the property of the joint family comprising of himself, respondents 2 and 3 herein and one R. N. Rangachari, who figured as the 1st defendant in the present suit. On 23-11-1959 the first respondent himself purchased said one-fourth un...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Meenakshi Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: 1970CriLJ926; (1968)2MLJ520
R. Sadasivam, J.1. State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 172 of 1964 on the file of the Additional First-Class Magistrate II, Madurai. The Food Inspector, Madurai Municipality, filed a complaint against the respondents under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with 2 (1) (a) (j) (h);2 (ix) (j), 7 (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, hereinafter called the ' Act' and Rule 28, clause A II. 11 in Appendix ' B ' to Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Act, for having sold ice cream which on analysis was deficient in fat to the extent of 50 per cent. and also contained coal-tar dye which is not of the permitted variety. P.W. 1 Narayanan, Food Inspector, Madurai Municipality went to the said ice cream company at about 9-50 A.M, On 22nd July, 1964, and purchased 600 grains from the second accused on payment of Rs. 3 and he adopted the usual procedure of dividing the ice cream into three equal parts, retaining one part with himself, giving one part...
St. K. Vr. Veerappa Chettiar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR737(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - In both the above Tax Cases, a common question has been referred to us, namely, 'whether the levy of penalty under section 28(1) (a) read with section 18A(9) (b) is lawful ?' The four assessment year involved in both the cases are 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54. The applicants in the two cases are brothers and members of the quondam Hindu undivided family. A partition took place in the Hindu undivided family of Karuppan Chettiar and his two sons, Veerappa and Chidambaram, on August 15, 1940. The former is the applicant in T. C. No. 11 of 1964 and the latter is the applicant in T. C. 12 of 1964. The fact of such partition was recorded by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated May 2, 1942, under section 25A(1). This resulted in a fresh assessment on the divided members of the Hindu undivided family for the year 1941-42 on December 5, 1942.In T. C. No. 11 of 1964, a notice under section 22(2) was issued on November 22, 1949, in respect of the a...
The Management of Safire theatre Vs. the Additional Commissioner for W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1967
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ191
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This petition is filed by the Management of the Safire Theatre against the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and nine workmen for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in T.S.E. Appeals Nos. 75 to 88 of 1973.2. Respondents 2 to 10 in the petition, were employed in the Snack Bar and Maintenance Section of the Safire Theatre. The Management decided to close down the Snack Bar and the Maintenance Section, and in pursuance of that decision, fourteen workers, including respondents 2 to 10 were retrenched with effect from 10th October, 1972. The required formalities in effecting retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with, but the workers refused to receive the notice, pay and compensation etc., offered at the time of retrenchment. In October-November, 1972, the Union raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer challenging the retrenchment as i...
Spencer and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Wealth Tax Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad359; [1969]72ITR33(Mad)
1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, refers to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 and involves the scope of Sub-clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act and its applicability to the facts of this case. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of different types including as hotel-keepers and caterers. For each of the two years, it has been assessed to Wealth-tax. The assessee claimed that a debt of Rupees 31,26,000/- should be taken into account in ascertaining its net wealth. The claim was negatived by the Revenue, and the Tribunal concurred with it. The following question has been, therefore, referred to us:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the claim of the assossee for the deduction of Rupees 31,26,000/- was rightly rejected as coming under Section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act?"2. The assessee acquired, pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors dated October ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coimbatore Motor Transport Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR165(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is a co-operative society for ex-servicemen engaged in transport of goods and passengers. It appears till 1959-60 the income of such societies was exempt from tax. No assessment was, therefore, made on the society till then, and it was assessed to tax for the first time for the year in question. The assessee claimed deduction of depreciation on the original cost if the assets and also an expenditure of Rs. 12,091 as for current repairs. The claims were disallowed by the revenue. But the Tribunal took a contrary view and permitted the deductions. At the instance of the Commissioner the following questions have been referred to us under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 :'(1) Whether the depreciation was properly allowed on the original cost of the assets and(2) Whether the expenditure of Rs. 12,091 was properly treated as being revenue in nature ?'So far as the first question is concerned,...
G. Gabriel Vs. the State Housing Board by Its Chairman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ226
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a Sevakar in the Madras housing Unit for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the order of the Chairman of the State housing Board dated 26th November, 1965 as confirmed by its order dated 9th February, 1966, dismissing him from service. The petitioner Was appointed as a Lascar in the City Improvement Trust on 7th February, 1958. He was confirmed as a Sevakar in the Madras - housing Unit on 14th February, 1961. On 26th August, 1959, the Board allotted a low cost tenement in C.I.T. Nagar on a rental basis in terms of a lease deed dated 26th August, 1958. The petitioner was also allotted on rental basis, plot No. 624, in pursuance of a memo. issued by the State housing Unit on 27th March, 1963, and the agreement between the petitioner and the Board for sale of this plot was executed on 26th June, 1964. The Board on coming to know that the petitioner had not conformed to the conditions of the agreement issued a show cause notice date...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »