Chennai Court July 1967 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rikabdas Chaganraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1967
Reported in: [1969]72ITR56(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. We are clearly of opinion that the reference to this court at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax should be answered in favour of the assessee. We are concerned with the assessment year 1958-59, the corresponding accounting year having ended on October 23, 1957. The assessee in the relevant year was a firm of partnership carrying on business at Madras. In the course of the assessment proceedings, four credit entries, two in November, 1956, one in February, 1957, and the last in March, 1957, were found entered in the accounts against certain named persons. On each of the corresponding dates of credits, the cash balance in the books was far less than them. The assessee's explanation was that the credits were received from certain businessmen from North India, who came to Madras for making purchases, and, while en route to Pondi-cherry, deposited the sum with the assessee for safe custody. But the assessee failed to furnish the address of the parties. Relying ...
Tag this Judgment!V.O.C. Arumugham Pillai Vs. A. Ilango and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad252
Natesan, J.1. The first plaintiff has preferred this second appeal, having failed in both the courts below in his suit for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him alone and for an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant (first plaintiff) is the father, the second defendant is his eldest son, the first defendant is his second son, the second plaintiff and the third plaintiff being his third and fourth sons respectively. The suit properties originally belonged to the Zamindar of Ettayapurajn and formed part of his pannai lands. Items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule, totalling an extent of 15.62 acres of punja lands in Sinnur village, are covered by the sale deed Ex A. 8, dated 21-2-1956 executed by the Zamindar in favour of the first defendant that is, the second son for a stated consideration of Rs. 1,500/-.The plaint-schedule first item is another 30 acres of punja lands in the said village an...
Tag this Judgment!V.E.R.S. Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. Assistant Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ171
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of S. No. 357/791 in Thuraiyur village, adjoining the bazaar road which bears S. No. 384. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioner purchased the property in Court auction and also obtained a sale certificate on 9th June, 1933 in execution of a decree on a mortgage. The petitioner got the property in a subsequent partition and has been enjoying the property ever since. When he wanted to put up a building on the site, a dispute was raised as to whether the site was included in the road poramboke in S. No. 384. Thereupon, the petitioner, according to his affidavit, made an application to the Survey Officer, Musiri, under Section 10 (1) of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 complaining that the above mentioned property, which was really part of his land, had been erroneously included in 1927 in the survey conducted in that year, without notice to him and that the said survey Was wholly wrong because it included the...
Tag this Judgment!A. Arpudaswami Chettiar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1967
Reported in: [1969]24STC459(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitions involve a common question for consideration and therefore they are heard together. They relate to assessments made on the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act respectively for 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. It is not necessary to mention the figures of turnover for the purpose of these writ petitions. What is important to be noticed is that for the several years mentioned above and in respect of the items of turnover now in dispute, the assessing authority made assessments on the footing that they were local sales assessable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The relevant assessment orders for four years mentioned under the Madras Sales Tax Act were passed on 15th January, 1961, 15th July, 1961, 19th December, 1962, and 3rd December, 1963. The assessee is a candle merchant and he supplies candles to churches and other institutions both in Madras State and outside. Regarding the turnovers in dispute, the factual position wa...
Tag this Judgment!G.M.A. Bhaimia, Muthavalli wakf Estate A.M. Bhaimia and ors. Vs. the M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ410
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. These petitions are filed by the Mutawallis of the various Wakf properties questioning the legality of the State Wakf Board claiming a certain percentage of contribution from the entire income of the Wakf properties, when only a portion of the income from such properties are set apart for religious, charitable or pious purposes. The petitioners are claiming relief by way of prohibition or certiorari, to forbear the Board from making its demand or to quash the notice issued by the State Wakf Board respectively.2. In W.P. No. 2 89 of 1964, ten per cent of the income has been set apart for religious charitable and pious purposes. In W.P. No. 1278 of 1964, a certain portion of the income from and out of the Wakf properties has been set apart for charitable purposes. So also in W.P Nos. 1279 and 1278 of 1964. In W.P. No. 1440 of 1964, a Wakf has been created for the maintenance and support of the founder's family, children and descendants and a sum of Rs. 480 annua...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumaraswami Pillai Vs. Srimushnam Vedapatasalai, Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ463
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, whereby, he, while trying the issue on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, upheld the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam, to try the suit instituted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for possession of certain lands in the occupation of the defendant as his tenant under a registered lease, dated 15th July, 1956 and for other reliefs. His case is that the lands in question, though inside an inam estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908) as amended in 1936 by Act (XVIII of 1936) and Section 2 (7) of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Madras Act (XXVI of 1963), are his private lands. The plaintiff has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs such as rent or in the alternative as damages for use and occupatio...
Tag this Judgment!Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC195(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. The assessees are the same in both the petitions which relate to assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60. The chargeability of three items of turnover is in question. The first item which is peculiar to the assessment year 1957-58 relates to the question whether the turnover comprises of the last sales in the State. The contention for the assessee is that the purchaser Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited purchased cotton at Kovilpatti and took delivery there and later transported the same to their factory in Kerala State, that actually the company has been assessed as the last purchaser of the same goods and that being the case there can be no charge on the turnover of the petitioner. It is not disputed for the revenue that Alagappa Textiles (Cochin) Limited has actually been assessed on the purchases made from the assessee here. That can certainly be taken judicial notice of. It should, therefore, be held that this item of turnover has to be deleted from the chargea...
Tag this Judgment!A.V.M. Subbaraju Vs. A. Balanarasimhaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ182
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The write petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by one A.V.M. Subbaraju, son of Mallikarjunayya. Mallikarjunayya filed E.A.T.A.S. No. 2 of 1962 before Estate Abolition Tribunal, Chingleput, against the order of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Chittoor in S.R. No. 361/UT/56 an application under Section 15 of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) read with Sections 13 and 14 of the said Act for the grant of a ryotwari patta to the private lands of the landholder, in the under-tenure estate of Chengalvapura Agraharam, Village of Triuttani Taluk. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the application on the main ground stated from his order, namely that the landholder's own evidence in the case showed that the lands were being leased out to ryots ever since their purchase and that there was no personal cultivation by the landholder or by his predecessors-in-title at any time. Against the above or...
Tag this Judgment!Kimberly Clark Corporation Vs. Bay's Chemicals
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ14
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Messrs. Kimberly Clark Corporation were the owners of the trade mark Kotex, a mark relating to sanitary napkins and belts, which were being sold by the firm in international markets. It appears that this mark had a previous history. The original registration relating to a Wisconsin Corporation, which effected this registration at Calcutta in 1944. In 1940, this country legislated a new measure with regard to the registration of trade marks (Indian Trade Marks Act, 1946) and the International Cellucotton Products Co., obtained rights with regard to this particular mark. Kimberley Clark Corporation (appellants) are the successors in respect of this right.2. The respondents before us (Bay's Chamicals) applied for registration of the trade mark Blotex, relating to the same category of goods, namely, sanitary napkins and belts, and the appellant firm instituted a notice of opposition during the attempted registration of this mark. The objections were overruled by ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. D. Sahadeva Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ462
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This application has been put in by the Official Assignee under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act in the insolvency of one P.C. John. One Sahadeva Mudaliar (respondent in this application) filed a suit O.S. No. 425 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court and sought to attach before judgment some movables of the insolvent. To avert the attachment a sum of Rs. 1,647-85 was deposited by P.C. John into Court sometime in 1964. Later P.C. John denied his liability in the suit and himself filed a suit O.S. No. 1117 of 1964 or. the file of the City Civil Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,300 from Sahadeva Mudaliar. When the suits were pending P.C. John filed an application in this Court on 7th April, 1966 to be adjudicated insolvent. He was so adjudicated on 8th April, 1966.2. Claiming that under Sections 17 and 51 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act the property in the sum of Rs. 1,647-85 belonging to the insolvent became vested in the Official...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »