Chennai Court August 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.
Abdul Malick Vs. the Collector of Dharmapuri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ9
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Settlement of Estates, Board of Revenue, relating to B.P.Rt. 2343(1) and to quash the order dated 20th April, 1967, made therein.2. The Petitioner applied to the Collector of Dharmapuri for the grant of a no-objection certificate to locate a touring cinema theatre in S. No. 34/1, in Mallapuram Village on 15th February, 1966. On 16th February, 1966 the third respondent applied to the Collector of Dharmapuri for the grant of no-objection certificate for locating a touring cinema theatre in S. No. 154 in Bommidi Village. The two sites were within the prohibited distance of four furlongs. The application of the petitioner was published an 9th March, 1966 in the notice board of the Collector's Office. On 15th April, 1966 an objection petition was filed by one Michael objecting to the grant of a no-objection certificate to the petitioner on the...
Tirumalaisami Naicker Vs. Villagers of Kadambur, Athur Taluk, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad108
Natesan, J.1. Two questions are raised in this Letters Patent Appeal from the decision of our learned brother, Kailasam, J. First it is contended that the suit not having been instituted in conformity with and as provided for under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, it is barred under Section 93 of the Act. Next it is submitted that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the other trustees of the religious institution in question.2. The appellant before us is the first defendant in a suit filed by the villagers of Kadambur, Athur Taluk, Salem District, represented by their Nattamaikarar Nallathambi Moopanar, as the plaintiff, for a declaration that the suit building belonged to the villagers and the second defendant in the suit, the District Board, Salem, was their tenant. An injunction was prayed for restraining the first defendant in the suit, the present appellant, from interfering with suit property. The...
Guruswami Nadar and ors. Vs. Ezhumalai Panchayat Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad271; (1968)1MLJ417
(1) Can the legality of a levy, which is in reality a tax, be upheld on he basis of a custom is the question for decision in this case. In the village of Elumalai in Madurai Dt., for over 30 years, it has been customary for the village community to make a collection called mahamai or tharagu in respect of certain articles brought into the village and certain other articles taken out of the village. The Panchayat Board of Elumalai passed a resolution on 16-12-1958 and levied a tax in respect of seven items of goods and articles brought into the village and certain other articles which were taken out of the village for purposes of the trade. The plaintiffs filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, questioning the levy. The first dependent Panchayat Board and the other defendants who were the lessees for collection of this levy, contested the suit claiming that the levy in question was valid on the basis of custom which had been given legal effect to by S. 58 of the Madras V...
Sellappa Gounder and anr. Vs. State of Madras Represented by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad104
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the State of Madras relating to G. O. No. 4256, Home, dated 14-9-1965 published in Fort St. George Gazette, dated 29-9-1965 and for quashing the same.2. The Petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 250/28 and S. No. 2491/A in Ariyur Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District. Regarding this land, the Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14-9-1965. In the same notification, under Sub-section (4) to Section 17, the Governor directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. On the same date 14-9-1965, the Governor also made a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands were needed for public purpose, namely for making provision for house sites for Harijans of Nadupatti. These two notifications are challenged in this writ petition.3. Mr. V.P. Raman, the learn...
The Loyal Textile Mills Ltd., Kovilpatti Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad269; [1968]68ITR14(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, of two questions; (a) whether, in computing the net wealth, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the sum of Rs. 6,66,931, the arrears of depreciation in each of the two years; and (b) whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of the sum of Rs. 4,70,220, being the income-tax liability in computing the net wealth in respect of 1957-58. The reference covers the assessment years, 1957-58 and 1958-59.(2) The assessee is a public limited company, which acquired the assets of E. D. Sasson any Co., Ltd., Bombay, for Rs. 40.65 lakhs in about June 1946. As on 30-6-1955, the full depreciation for the earlier years was not provided for. but the balance sheet as on 30-6-1956 contained a note that arrears of depreciation up to the end of 30-6-1954 had not been provided and amounted to Rs. 10,58,833. The break-up of the arrears of depreciation showed, for normal depreciation plus shift allowance Rs. 7,46,12...
Sellappa Gounder and anr. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ174
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the State of Madras relating to G.O. No. 4256, Home, dated 14th September, 1965, published in Fort St. George Gazette, dated 29th September, 1965 and for quashing the same.2. The petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 250/2-6 and S. No. 249'/1-A in Ariyur Village, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District. Regarding this land, the Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th September, 1965. In the same notification, under Sub-section (4) to Section 17, the Governor directed that in view of the urgency of the case, the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply. On the same date i.e., on 14th September, 1965, the Governor also made a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that the lands were needed for public purpose, namely, for making provision for house sites for Harijans of Nadupatti. These two notifications a...
Km.Rm. Kumarappa Chettiar Vs. Ramana Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ542
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for-recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,200 with interest on the foot of a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the appellant herein. The first defendant is the father. Defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. Defendants 2 and 3 and their father were members of a joint Hindu family. On 7th February, 1952 the first defendant executed a promissory note for Rs. 3,650 in favour of the plaintiff. On 1st July, 1953, the first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of his minor sons of the entire estate. He did not provide any property or make any arrangement to discharge-the promissory note debt. Subsequent to the execution of the settlement, on 14th June, 1954, the father executed another promissory note for a sum of Rs. 6,200 which, according to him, was made up of Rs. 2,036 received in cash and Rs. 4,615 due on earlier promissory note. The plaintiff gave a notice on 15th June, 1955 calling upon...
Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Nadras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR637(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference arises under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following being the questions for decision :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision of Rs. 5,78,076, Rs. 5,25,657 and Rs. 1,94,471 made in respect of taxes were deductible in the computation of net wealth as on 31st March, 1957, 31st March, 1958, and 31st March, 1959, respectively ?'2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,95,958, representing the difference in the amount of initial depreciation allowed but not written off in the books was rightly disallowed in the competition of the net wealth under section 7(2) (a) for the valuation dates March 31, 1957 and March 31, 1958 ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 36 lakhs as on 31st March, 1957 and Rs. 15 lakhs as on 31st March, 1958, representing the arrears of tax payable to department were deductible in the computation of the net...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›