Chennai Court April 1967 Judgments
Official Receiver of Ramanathapuram at Madurai Vs. Ar. Rm. Subramaniam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad382
1. On a petition filed by Narayanan Chettiar, which was admitted on 24-3-1959, he was adjudged an insolvent on 22-12-1959. His creditors had laid suits and obtained decrees, Some among them had put their decrees into execution and attached with a view to bring to sale the shares of the sons of the insolvent in the family properties. It appears that in the case of at least one such proceeding, some properties had been brought to sale and the sale had also been confirmed. There were other attachments, and, at this stage, the Official, Receiver moved the Insolvency court, the Subordinate Judge's court, Devakottai, by a petition purporting to be under Sections 4, 28-A and 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. He sought a declaration that the right to sell the shares of the sons of the insolvent in the family properties vested in the Official Receiver to the exclusion of all other persons by reason of the adjudication and that the decree-holders had no right to proceed with the execution ...
Tag this Judgment!The General Electric Company of India Private Limited Vs. Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC283(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioners, the General Electric Company of India Private Limited, are dealers in all kinds of electrical goods, and they undertake also works contracts on behalf of others. During the year 1957-58 an overall assessment of all the transactions of the petitioners was made by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer IV, South Madras. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the order of the assessing officer, in which inter alia the petitioners disputed their liability on a turnover of Rs. 7,00,958.20 alleging that they constituted receipts on account of alleged works contracts. Five contracts were in all involved. Being unsuccessful before the appellate authority, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, regarding the receipts relating to the works contracts executed by them for the benefit of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Superintending Engineer, Basin Bridge Power Station, and other items of t...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Subramaniam Vs. State by Union of India (Uoi), Represented by S.P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1294
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This revision petition baa been filed by Sri N.S. Subramaniam, the accused in C. C. 18 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Special Judge, Madras against the order of the learned Special Judge overruling his preliminary objection that the Court bad no jurisdiction to take cognisance 'of the offence alleged against the accused without the requisite sanction prescribed under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947). The charge against him was that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 7,861.80 between December 1963 and October 1964 from out of the collections made by him as the manager of the Central Government Tourist Bungalow at Madurai, an offence tinder Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Act. He bad been appointed as the Manager by order dated 8-4-1968, by the Director, Government of India Tourist office, Madras. He was relieved of the post on 30-9-1964.Thereafter leave was granted to him upto 15-3-1965. The charge sheet was fil...
Tag this Judgment!The General Electric Company of India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Government of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ429
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners, the General Electric Company of India Private Ltd., are dealers in all kinds of electrical goods, and they undertake also works contracts on behalf. of others. During the year 1957-58 an overall assessment of all the transactions of the petitioners was made by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer IV, South Madras. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Assessing officer, in which inter alia the petitioners disputed their liability on a turnover of Its. 7,00,958-20 alleging that they constituted receipts on account of alleged works contracts. Five contracts Were in all involved. Being unsuccessful before the appellate authority, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, regarding the receipts relating to the works contracts executed by them for the benefit of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Superintending Engineer, Basin Bridge Power Station, and other items of ...
Tag this Judgment!Vanamamalai thevar and ors. Vs. Narayana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ622
M. Natesan, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 and arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties with future mesne profits from the date of suit. Defendants 3 and 4 are wife and son of the first defendant and have been added subsequent to the institution of the suit, the fourth defendant being a minor represented by his mother as guardian ad litem. The plaintiff Sivagami Ammal was the wife of one Arunachalam Pillai, to whom the suit properties admittedly belonged. The and defendant in the suit was impleaded as the santhathi or son of the plaintiff and the said Arunachalam Pillai. It was the plaintiff's case that Arunachalam Pillai who was leading a wayward life and dissipating his properties, at the request of the plaintiff and others interested in the couple, executed a settlement deed on 31st March, 1925, whereunder the suit properties were settled on hereself and her husband for their lifetime to be enjoyed jointly. T...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. C. Muthuvaithilingam Chettiar and Others Vs. Government of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR330(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - This batch of tax revision cases filed under section 54(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, is directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in proceedings initiated by him suo motu. The relevant and material facts are as follows :Under a partition deed dated May 31, 1954, two brothers, Muthuvaithilingam Chettiar and Paramasivam Chettiar, divided their agricultural holdings. Thereafter, there was a partition in each of the branches of Muthuvaithilingam Chettiar and Paramasivam Chettiar. On June 12, 1954, Muthuvaithilingam Chettiar effected a partition of his lands between himself and his four minor sons. On June 16, 1954, Paramasivam Chettiar effected a partition between him and his three minor sons. It may be noted that Muthuvaithilingam Chettiar settled a portion of his holdings in favour of his wife on June 15, 1964, and Paramasivam Chettiar settled a portion of his holdings in favour of his wife and mino...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madras Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ553
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellant is the Corporation of Madras. The plaintiffs are the owners of O.S. No. 160 and T.S. No. 5706 of an extent of 2 1/2 grounds within the Madras Corporation limits. The Corporation issued a notice to the plaintiffs under Section 190 of the City Municipal Act proposing to dig a trench with a depth of 8 feet, breadth of 3 feet and length of 75 feet for laying sewers through the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from proceeding with the laying of the aforesaid sewers. The trial Court dismissed the suit. But the appellate Court took the view that it is not open to the Corporation to exercise its powers under Section 190 of the City Municipal Act without paying compensation to the persons on whose land work is proposed to be carried out and allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The second appeal is against that judgment. ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnan Vs. Balasubramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ537
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff who has substantially failed in the Courts below has filed this second appeal. The suit, ostensibly and in the ultimate one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/3 share in the properties of a joint Hindu family with consequential reliefs, is in the main one challenging the alienations made by the plaintiff's father. The first defendant in the suit is the father and the second defendant, the younger brother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 14 are alienees from the father. Defendants 10, 11 and 14 did not contest the plaintiff's claim and except in respect of items 6, 7 and 10 in the plaint in which they were said to be interested, the plaintiff's claim for partition was rejected. A preliminary decree for partition was granted to the plaintiff as against the ex parte defendants in respect of the items in which they were stated to be interested. Of the contested items that were made the subject-matter in the second appeal the arguments...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.A.S.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad262; [1968]67ITR584(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.(1) The facts that led to this reference under Sec. 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 are within a narrow compass, and they can be put down briefly.(2) The assessment year is 1942-43 and for accounting year ending on 12-4-1942. The assessee S. N. A. A. S. A. Annamalai Chettiar, executor to the estate of the late S. M. A. S. Chockalingam Chettiar of Karaikudi, carried on extensive money lending business sin India and abroad. In the course of the money lending business properties were taken over in settlement of debts as and when occasion arose. During the second World War, on account of Japanese bombing, properties of the assessee thus acquired in Malaya suffered damage. We are concerned in this reference with losses suffered during such bombing in December 1941, estimated at Rs. 1,93,750. It is common ground that this bombing in December 1941, estimated at Rs. 1,93,750. It is common ground that this bombing in December 1941 fell within the accounting year. When th...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue, Madras, Referring Authority Vs. Annamalai and Co. (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad50
1. This is a reference under Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The following question has been referred to us for decision:"Whether the document dated 13-8-1957 is an instrument given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell any immoveable property falling under Art. 48(f) of Sch. 1-A (now Article 48(e) of Schedule (1) or a mere power of attorney falling under Article 48(d) of Schedule 1-A (now Article 48(c) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act as amended)". Annamalai and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., the respondent herein, borrowed several sums of money from Reliance Bank of India, Ltd., and hypothecated with the Bank immoveable properties as security for the loan. Thereafter, on 13-8-1957, Annamalai and Co. executed a document, described as an irrevocable power of attorney, which is the subject-matter of the present reference. The gist of the document is this.(2) Annamalai and Co. to be described as the borrowers, agreed with the Board of directors of the Bank of 8-8-1957 to g...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »