Chennai Court October 1968 Judgments
Pachai Ammal and ors. Vs. A.T.P. Thirugnanasambandam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ277
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The third defendant is the appellant. He is a purchaser of the suit properties from the first defendant and one Alamelu Ammal to whom the properties belonged by a sale deed dated 7th September, 1952. In execution of a decree obtained against the first defendant and Alamelu Ammal in O.S. No 130 of 1949 the suit properties were attached in R.E.P. No. 358 of 1952. That petition was dismissed on 13th October, 1952 keeping the attachment alive for three months. The next execution petition R.E.P. No. 816 of 1952 was filed on 19th November, 1952 and in that execution the plaintiff became the purchaser of the whole of the suit properties. Thereafter the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 374 of 1955 for possession of the properties he purchased in Court auction. Alamelu Ammal's legal representative, that is the present second defendant (daughter) filed an application for setting aside the sale on the ground that on the date the sale took place her mother had died. This application ...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd. Vs. First Additional Income-tax Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR161(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The short point raised by the petitioner is whether advance income-tax paid can properly be adjusted towards the tax, so it is said, referable to capital gains. The capital gains were made by the transferor of the petitioner. Originally, the assessment on the petitioner included capital gains, but, on appeal, they were eliminated on the view that the petitioner, only succeeded to the business of the transferor, and not to its capital gains. This was on a construction of Section 26(2), in the light of a judgment of the Supreme Court. Subsequent to the appellate order, the Income-tax Officer adjusted the advance tax paid by the transferor towards the tax due on its capital gains. 2. Reference is made to Section 18A and it is contended that, particularly in view of Sub-sections (11) and (12), the advance tax paid can only be adjusted towards tax levided on income, and not capital gains. The advance tax contemplated by Section 18A is no doubt calculated on the income of th...
Tag this Judgment!Madras-bangalore Transport Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ136Mad
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The Madras-Bangalore Transport Company has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved against an order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, the respondent herein, dated 9 June 1965, making a demand on the petitioner to pay Rs. 97,974.75, by way of damages which by a subsequent order of the Department of the Industries, Labour and Co-operation of the Government of Madras dated 31 August 1965, was reduced to 40 percent.2. It appears from the particulars supplied to me at the time of the hearing by the respondent, that, during the years 1962 and 1963, the petitioner had delayed payment of the amounts due as provident fund contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds Article, from the due dates by certain periods of delay which varied from month to month. From time to time, the accounts officer of the respondent had intimated that a particular sum of money should be remitted by the petitioner, under the heading of da...
Tag this Judgment!T. Abdullah, Muthavalli of and as Representing the New Street, Mosque ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ510
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is the new street Mosque and the principal defendant-respondent is the old Street Mosque in Vaniyambadi town. Abdullah claiming to be the mutavalli of the new street Mosque sued for partition and separate, possession of 4/6th share in items 1 to 3 and for recovery of the entirety of item 4 of the plaint schedule and for profits, past and future. The plaintiff's case was that till about 1913, there was a common mutavalli of the two mosques, who was maintaining common or joint accounts and that after him, a similar state of things continued. It was said however that the plaintiff mosque was not properly looked after, so that in 1932, all the Jamaths of Vaniyambadi decided that a sum of Rs. 50 should be paid by the old street mosque to the new street mosque from out of the rent collections of the properties. This arrangement was however discontinued after some time so that when the plaintiff Abdullah was appointed as the Mutavalli for the new st...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Bangalore Transport Company Represented by P.V.S. Mani Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ156
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The Madras Bangalore Transport Company has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved against an order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, the respondent herein, dated 9th June, 1965 making a demand on the petitioner to pay Rs. 97,974-75, by way of damages, which by a subsequent order of the Department of the Industries, Labour and Co-operation of the Government of Madras, dated 31st August, 1965 was reduced to 40 per cent.2. In appears, from the particulars supplied to me at the time of the hearing by the respondent, that, during the years 1962 and 1963, the petitioner had delayed payment of the amounts due as provident fund contribution under the Employees, Provident Fund Act, from the due dates by certain periods of delay which varied from month to month. From time to time, the Accounts Officer for the respondent had intimated that a particular sum of money should be remitted by the petitioner,, under the hea...
Tag this Judgment!Pamela Williams Vs. Patrick Cyril Martin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad92
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, for declaring the petitioner herein to be the guardian of the person of the petitioner's minor illegitimate daughter born on 8-9-1955 and for directing the respondent herein, the putative father of the said illegitimate child, to give custody of the said minor child to the petitioner herein. The respondent is the husband of the petitioner's mother's younger sister. The petitioner, two other daughters and her brother were the children of her parents. After the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner's mother married one G. Ballard. The petitioner claims to be very much attached to her aunt, namely, the wife of the respondent. According to the petitioner, she used to frequently visit the respondent and his wife. From 1950 to 1963, the petitioner lived with the respondent in the respondent's house as his mistress and it is as a result of this illicit connection between the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kamatchi Ammal Vs. Athigamudaya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad426; (1969)1MLJ440
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit property originally belonged to one Urkavalan Pillai, who settled it upon his wife, Kunjarathammal, under a document, Ex. A-1, dated 19-8-1924. Kunjarathammal and Urkavalan Pillai executed a possessory mortgage, Ex. B-1, on 7-6-1939 in favour of the first defendant. The suit cut of which the second appeal arises was for redemption of this mortgage. Defendants 2 to 6 are the sons of Urkavalan Pillai's brother, Arumugham Pillai. D-7 is a daughter-in-law of his. The plaintiff is a successor-in-interest of a purchaser from Urkavalan's wife under Ex. A-2. Defendants 2 to 7 contended that the properties were the joint family properties of Urkavalan Pillai and their father, and that therefore Urkavalan Pillai had no right to settle them on his wife. They also claimed that they were in possession for over the statutory period and perfected title by adverse possession. Both these points have been found against them.2. There was an earl...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.S.S. Soundaram, President, Sri Pathirakaliamman Festival Exhibitio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ6
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is to quash the orders of the second respondent dated 23rd March, 1965, confirming the order of the first respondent dated 5th June, 1964, assessing the petitioner, on best judgment, to entertainment tax and surcharge in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,000 determined to be the entertainment collections made on 3rd May, 1964. The cinema was exhibited on certain other days as well, but we are not concerned with them, as this petition is confined only to the orders we mentioned. The validity of the orders are assailed on three grounds; (i) infraction of natural justice, (ii) the exhibition, including the cinema, did not amount to an entertainment, within the meaning of the Entertainment Tax Act and (Hi) in any case, the Madras Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961, is ultra vires. As we consider the first point is well-founded, it is unnecessary to decide the other two points.2. Licence for the cinema shows was granted with the express condition that there s...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.S.S. Soundaram, President, Sri Pathirakaliamman Festival Exhibitio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ184
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is to quash the orders of the second respondent dated 23rd March, 1965, confirming the order of the first respondent dated 5th June, 1964, assessing the petitioner, on best judgment, to entertainment tax and surcharge in respect of a sum of Rs. 3,000, determined to be the entertainment collections made on 3rd March, 1964. The cinema was exhibited on certain other days as well but we are not concerned with them, as this petition is confined only to the orders mentioned. The validity of the orders is assailed on three grounds : (1) infraction of natural justice, (2) the exhibition, including the cinema, did not amount to an entertainment, within the meaning of the Entertainment Tax Act and (3) in any case, the Madras Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961, is ultra vires. As we consider the first point is well founded, it is unnecessary to decide the other two points.2. Licence for the cinema shows was granted with the express condition that there shou...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Timber Depot and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Cho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC158(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions raise a common point and have, therefore, been heard together. The question is whether what is described as lot cooly charges paid on a percentage basis by the customers to the different assessees form part of the turnover chargeable to sales tax. These charges were not included as being taxable in the initial assessments, but they were reopened and the charges, as forming part of the turnover, were subjected to tax. The typical reasoning of the revenue for doing so is that the amount was charged and paid at the time of sale 'along with the price of the goods' and so, it formed part of the turnover within the meaning of the definition of 'turnover'. An additional reason in support of that view was that lot cooly could not also fall within the scope of any of the items for which deduction was provided by Rule 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Broadly, therefore, the view maintained by the revenue is that charges, which may well be described ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »