Chennai Court April 1968 Judgments
Loganatha Mudali and ors. Vs. Manikkammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ95
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One Jayarama Mudaliar and his four brothers constituted a Hindu undivided family. The said Jayarama Mudaliar by a notice dated 25th August, 1952 brought about a severance of status, between him and his four brothers. On 24th September, 1952, he executed a deed of settlement with respect to his one-fifth share in the properties of the family. Under the terms of the deed, he granted the said one-fifth share in favour of the 1st defendant herein and defendants 2 to 7, subject to certain conditions. The 1st defendant was to take steps to have the one-fifth share divided by metes and bounds and to enjoy the same on condition of his paying a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 15th January, every year to the said Jayarama Mudaliar towards his maintenance and another sum of Rs. 1,000 on the same date towards the maintenance of his wife, the 1st respondent herein. Even after the death of Jayarama Mudaliar, the 1st defendant was to pay the sum of Rs. 1,000 to the 1st respondent herein so long...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Narayanaswami Asari Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ411
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 270 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif of Ramanathapuram, against the order dated 14th February, 1966 of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in A.S. No. 35 of 1961, setting aside the decree which the plaintiff had obtained at the hands of the learned District Munsif and remaining the suit for fresh disposal after reissuing the warrant of commission to the same Commissioner who had previously inspected the property. The suit concerns a strip of land marked yellow just south of the office of the Keelakarai Panchayat Board (second defendant) and north of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims it as part of his property and the Panchayat Board claims it as its. The plan, Exhibit B-2, drawn by the Commissioner shows the property in dispute. On a prior occasion the plaintiff had filed the suit O.S. No. 50 of 1946 against the Panchayat Board and succeeded and he contend...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Athimoola Mudaliar Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ299
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari is directed against a notice dated 25th November, 1964 of demand for. payment of betterment contribution under the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act (VII of 1920), issued to the petitioner by the second respondent, the Assistant Engineer, Town Planning, Works Department, Corporation of Madras. The first respondent in the writ petition is the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Ripon Buildings, Madras.The impugned notice is a brief one and reads thus:It is noticed that you are the owner of a piece of land bearing R.S. No. 3754/ 38 pt. of Mylapore included in the Western Section Area Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government. This is to bring to your notice that the foregoing property is liable to ' Betterment Contribution ' under the provisions of the Town Planning Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The liability for betterment contribution decid...
Tag this Judgment!Erode Transports (P.) Ltd., Tirupur Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad23
The judgment of the court was d delivered byVEERASWAMI J. - In respect of the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,615 as legal expense. This amount included a sum of Rs. 1,250 paid to an advocate in connection with the opening of three new bus routes. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim in toto. The Appellate authority declined to interfere but found that the correct figure was a sum of Rs. 1,250. The Tribunal also concurred with the revenue. In the circumstance the reference comes before us under section 99 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question is :"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,250 is not an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessees business income under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60 ?"It is stated that the sum of Rs. 1,250 was fees paid to a lawyer who appeared in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, to obtain the the ne...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad233; 1969CriLJ983
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner Kuppuswami Chettiar was convicted under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P (2) and (iv) and (vi) of Part XII-A Gold Control-Chapter IV of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, read with Rule 126-B (2) (d) of the said Rules and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months under each count, the sentence to run concurrently and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under the second count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, filed a complaint against the revision petitioner under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sections 111 and 112 of the said Act and Rule 126-P (2) and (iv) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. After the preliminary enquiry, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate framed charges under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P (2) (ii) and (iv) of Part XII-A...
Tag this Judgment!J. Chelliah Vs. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ571
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner, Chelliah, is accused 2 in C. C. No. 726 of 1964 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The petitioner was charged along with accused 1 and 3 originally under Section 500, I.P.C., but he alone was convicted under Section 500 I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate. On appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. There are no merits in this revision petition.2. The only point that has been raised by the learned Counsel is that even assuming that the allegations made by the revision petitioner were per se defamatory, the lower Courts must have held that he made such allegations in good faith and in the interests of his sisters claiming the benefit of exception 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. Both the Courts below have negatived the contention of the petitioner. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Kuppuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ528
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner Kuppuswamy Chettiar, was convicted under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P (2) and (iv) arid (vi) of Part XII-A Gold Control--Chapter VI of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Rule 126-H (2) (d) of the said Rules and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months under each count, the sentences to run concurrently and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 under the second count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, filed a complaint against the revision petitioner under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with in and 112 of the said Act and Rule 126-P (2) and (iv) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. After the preliminary enquiry, the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate framed charges under Section 135 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P (2) (ii) and (iv) of Part XII-A, ...
Tag this Judgment!Erode Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR283(Mad)
The judgment of the court was d delivered byVEERASWAMI J. - In respect of the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,615 as legal expense. This amount included a sum of Rs. 1,250 paid to an advocate in connection with the opening of three new bus routes. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim in toto. The Appellate authority declined to interfere but found that the correct figure was a sum of Rs. 1,250. The Tribunal also concurred with the revenue. In the circumstance the reference comes before us under section 99 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question is :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,250 is not an admissible deduction in the computation of the assessees business income under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1959-60 ?'It is stated that the sum of Rs. 1,250 was fees paid to a lawyer who appeared in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, to obtain the the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. Vs. Pandyan Bank Ltd., Madurai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR707(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This matter pertains to the assessment year 1960-61 and involves the question whether development rebate allowed by the Tribunal, differing from the revenue, is correct. The assessee, the Pandyan Bank Limited, Madurai, a public limited company carrying on banking business, owned a building with a total floor space of 34,398 sq. ft. The whole of it was air-conditioned. The total cost of the machineries for air-conditioning was Rs. 2,31,279. The assessee in its return claimed both depreciation and also development rebate in respect thereof. The income returned by the assessee was under the three heads, interest, business and property. In a part of the premises of an extent of 1,300 sq. ft. there were two tenants, one the Airlines Corporation Ltd., and the other the standard Vacuum Oil Company Limited, both of which were, under the terms of the tenancy, entitled to air-condition facilities. The claim for development rebate was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer with whom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›