Chennai Court October 1968 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.
M.R. Pratap and anr. Vs. the Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1582
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. These two petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 8736 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Edmore, Madras, under Section 561-A, Criminal P.C. on the ground that the complaint against the petitioners for the alleged offence mentioned therein is untenable.2. The Director of Enforcement filed a complaint against the Royal Corporation Private Ltd., the petitioner in Crl. M. P. 980 of 1968 and Sri M. R. Prate, Managing Director of the said concern, the petitioner in Crl. M. P. No. 978 of 1968, alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Section 23(1)(b) read with Sections 4(8), 4(1) 9 and 5(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and Rule 132-A (2) of the Defence of India Bales. The complaint was taken on file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against the two petitioners and process was issued to them to appear before the Court.3. The brief facts of the pro...
R.P. David and ors. Vs. M. Thiagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ168
R. Sadasivam, J.1. These connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the order of the District Judge, Salem in LA. No. 402 of 1962 and I.A.No. 383 of 1964 in O.P. No. 34 of 1959 in the lunacy proceedings in the matter of Miss Mary Holwall Short. A certain coffee estate called Riverdale Estate belonged to two sisters, the aforesaid Miss Mary Holwcll Short, the lunatic and Miss Alice Edith Short. G.F. Muirhead and Rev. E.L. Poyser were appointed managers in the lunacy proceedings to manage the estate of the said Miss Mary Holwcll Short, who was adjudged lunatic in the said O.P. No. 34 of 1959 District Court, Salem. The managers so appointed were not in a position to manage the estate and they considered it best to sell the same. Miss Alice Edith Short also agreed to convey her share to the person to whom the lunatic's share was to be sold, in order to secure the best available price. One David made the highest offer of Rs. five lakhs within the time notified for making the offer a...
The Ammapet Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ275
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. All these writ petitions raise the same question, and they can be dealt with together. The first respondents in the five writ petitions are employed under the petitioner, the Ammapet Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales. Society Ltd. The first respondent in W.P. No. 1978 of 1967 K. S. Kadalaimuthu was transferred from Ammapet to Erode on 28th January, 1965 directing him to join at Erode on 1st February, 1965. The first respondent asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and ten days' time to join. This was refused. The employee, first respondent, did not turn up, and the society on 16th March, 1965 passed an order stating that the employee has not reported at the depot to which he was transferred, though he was required to join on 1st February, 1965 and that he had not made any application for leave for not joining duty and hence he was removed from the list of employees. The first respondent in W.P. No. 2510 of 1967, P. S. Guruswami,. was transferred fro...
K.P.M. Abdul Majeed Vs. Assistant Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: [1970]78ITR124(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for a, direction forbidding the Assistant Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nannilain, from proceeding against the common petitioner for assessment of the agricultural income. He and his brother, K.P.M. Abdul Khader, owned 309.66 acres of wet and dry lands in Nannilam Taluk. They divided the properties by metes and bounds under a deed of partition, dated 21st July, 1952, each getting a moiety of the estate. The petitioner, thereafter, by two deeds dated 23rd March, 1955, and 15th March, 1958, settled his entire share of lands on his wife and minor children. Though the settlees individually applied for composition under the provisions of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer clubbed all the lands, including the share allotted to K. P. M. Abdul Khader and charged the total income from the entire lands to agricultural income-tax. This order was eventually set aside by this court...
Rajakumari Mathuramba Rajayi Vs. First Expenditure-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR145(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This petition turns on the application of Section 53 of the Finance Act, 1964, to the expenditure incurred by the deceased, Shanmugha Raja, between July 1, 1962, and March 11, 1963. After his death on March 11, 1963, the Expenditure-tax Officer, Karaikudi, by a notice under Section 13(2) of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, which was dated August 18, 1964, called upon his widow to furnish a return of the expenditure incurred by him for the expenditure-tax assessment year 1964-65. By a later correspondence from the department it appears that the requisition for return was confined to the year ended June 30, 1963. 2. This shows, and it is not in dispute, that the deceased Raja of Sivaganga followed the year from July 1 of a year to June 30 of the following year. 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to forbid the Expenditure-tax Officer from proceeding further. The ground of the petitioner is that, on a proper interpretation of Section 53 of the F...
Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Third Income-tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR479(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a petition to quash an order of the Third Income-tax Officer, Madurai-2. The order related to the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner, The Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, was assessed to income-tax and super-tax which amounted to Rs. 23, 845.47. The tax was computed on a total taxable income of Rs. 51,763, while, actually, the income taken for purposes of rate amounted to Rs. 9,48,335. Applying the Finance Act, 1963, the residual income Was determined at Rs. 5,39,386. There is no dispute that the computation of the residual income was strictly in terms of Section 2(8) of the Act. The additional surcharge leviable on the residual income Was fixed atRs. 52,828'60, the total tax payable by the petitioner thus amounting to Rs. 76.674-07.2. The contention for the petitioner is that the provision relating to the additional surcharge levied on the residual income is not valid, inasmuch as it goes beyond the taxable income computed for purposes...
T.M. Abdul Gani, Representing the Estate of T.M.S. Mohamed Abdul Khade ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ507
K. Veeraswami J.1. The petitioner seeks, under Article 226 of the Constitution a direction to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Tiruthuraipundi, to accept the composition application dated 25th May, 1964 and levy the composition fees on its basis. T.M.S. Mohamed Abdul Khadar died on 18th February, 1964. For the year 1963-64, he was allowed to compound agricultural Income-tax payable on his entire estate. During his life-time, he had made certain gifts and after his death his heirs on whom his assets devolved in defined shares under their personal law, applied as tenants in common for composition of the tax. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, by his communication dated 26th May, 1965, informed the petitioner that since Mohamed Abdul Khader had died at the fag end of the accounting year 1963-64, his entire lands should have to be assessed in the hands of his legal representatives taken jointly. He proceeded to say:It is proposed to levy composition fees for all the lands in the name...
Sundaram and ors. Vs. the Corporation of Madras, Represented by the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ217
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 2281 of 1966 and W.P. Nos. 357 and 1592 of 1968 are residents 6f West Mambalam; the petitioner in W.P. No. 2597 of 1967 is a resident of Shastri Nagar and the petitioner in W.P. No. 2761 of 1967 is a resident of Kodambakkam. The contention of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that the Corporation has not provided the localities with water supply and drainage or lighting and therefore they are bound to refer the matter to the State Government for exemption of the local areas from payment of water supply and drainage tax and the lighting tax on the ground that such areas are not deriving any benefit from water supply and drainage or lighting system as envisaged under Section 102 proviso (a) of the City Municipal Corporation Act.2. The Shastri Nagar area in Adyar is planned and constructed by the State Housing Board. The houses were allotted by the State Housing Board to various persons. In the costs of the building, the cost fo...
Gulabibai JaIn Vs. District Munsif, Poonamallec Rent Controller and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ303
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In our view, the substantial point which is involved in the writ appeal can be disposed of on quite a short ground. It is a well-established principle of the judicial interpretation of statutes, that a Court may certainly look into the full-length title of an Act and its Preamble, in order to appreciate the intendment and tenor of the enacted statute. Certainly, this was enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in In re Kerala Education Bill) 1957 : [1959]1SCR995 , and their Lordships further observed on this principle that, when any particular clause leaves any discretion to the Government to take any action, it must be understood that such discretion must be exercised for the purpose of advancing the policy enunciated in the Preamble. Their Lordships stated that the policy and purpose of a given measure could be deduced from the Long Title and Preamble thereto, and that this has been recognised in many decisions of that Court.2. But, the extraordi...
K.P.M. Abdul Majeed P. Kondagai Vs. the Assistant Agricultural Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ536
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction forbidding the Assistant Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nannilam, from proceeding against the common petitioner for assessment of the agricultural income. He and his brother K.P.M. Abdul Khader owned 309-66 acres of wet and dry lands in Nannilam taluk. They divided the properties by metes and bounds under a deed of partition dated 21st July, 1952, each getting a moiety of the estate. The petitioner, thereafter, by two deeds dated 23rd March, 1955 and 15th March, 1958, settled his entire share of lands on his wife and minor children. Though the settlees individually applied for composition under the provisions of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer clubbed all the lands, including the share allotted to K.P.M. Abdul Khader and charged the total income from the entire lands to agricultural income-tax. This order was eventually set aside by this Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »