Chennai Court September 1968 Judgments
P. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR534(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference relates to the propriety of disallowance of an expenditure incurred in the form of interest paid on borrowing. The assessment year is 1961-62. The assessee during that year carried on money-lending business and in addition received income from the firms of partnership. He was a partner in Mappadam Rubber Estate, an agricultural estate in which he had invested Rs. 1,00,000 towards his share capital. Likewise, he had also invested in Nathan Muthu Thalanar Estate, a forest taken for clearing and cultivation of paddy, etc., a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 towards his half share of the capital in a firm of partners of which the assessee was one. He returned an income of Rs, 7,661 from his moneylending business; but this was arrived at after deducting a sum of Rs. 20,700 by way of interest paid on borrowed money. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,321 as referable to a sum of Rs. 2,16,742 which constituted the assessee's share of the capital in Nathan Muth...
Tag this Judgment!Garnier and Co. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC467(Mad)
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition (W.P. No. 2144 of 1967) by Messrs Gamier & Co., for a writ of prohibition against the State of Madras represented by the District Magistrate, South Arcot, Cuddalore, and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Cuddalore, directing them to forbear from executing the warrant issued under Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act at Pondicherry State through the District Magistrate, Pondicherry. The petitioners' contention is that no sales were effected in the Madras State. But this is not the subject-matter of the writ proceedings as it is being agitated before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the District Magistrate, Cuddalore, has no jurisdiction to issue a distress warrant against the movables of the petitioners in Pondicherry State. The same question arises for consideration in the connected Criminal Revision Case No. 880 of 1967 where also Messrs Garnier & Co. are the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Ltd., Madras Vs. Sarathy Brothers and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad37
Veeraswami, J. 1. These are connected Second appeals by the seconddefendant. Bank of India Ltd., from a common judgment of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who disagreed with the trial Court and decreed the suits as prayed for. They were instituted each by a tenant of portions of 'Lecotts Buildings', 26 Errabalu Chetti St. G.T. Madras, for an injunction restraining the defendants from causing any obstruction to the use and enjoyment of the passage leading to Errabalu Chetty Street from the portion in the occupation of each of the plaintiffs. Two of the plaintiffs became tenants prior to 26th June 1961 and the other after that date. The entire premises originally belonged to the Chrome Leather Co. (P.) Ltd. (first defendant). On 26th June 1961, the first defendant sold the front portion of the premises inclusive of its entire frontage on Errabalu Chetti Street for a handsome price. The second defendant decided to demolish portions of the premises purchased by them a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.H. Sri Brahadambadas Raja Rajagopala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR816(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The question under reference is 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 12B(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act,. 1922, in respect of capital gains arising out of sale of the property, 'Bishops Gardens'?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1961-62 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1961. The assessee, the Raja of Pudukottai, entered into an agreement with the Raja of Chettinad on February 8, 1960. Under the agreement the assessee was to convey the property, No. 4, Greenways Road, Adyar, in favour of the purchaser for a sum of Rs. 4,35,000. A further stipulation between the parties was that the sale deeds should be executed either in favour of the Raja of Chettinad or his nominees. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid and there remained a balance of Rs. 3,35,000 which was to be paid before May 31, 1960. The balance was paid on two dates, September 15, 1960, and November 13, 1960....
Tag this Judgment!Subbathal Vs. Kittammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1968
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ293
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 who failed in the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The main point that arises for decision is whether the consent decree in an earlier litigation, O.S. No. 152 of 1954, Sub--Court, Coimbatore, operates as res judicata as against the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff, Kittammal, and her four sisters, Subbathal, Karupathal, Nachiammal and Fechiammal, succeeded to the properties which also included the suit properties on the death of their mother. Defendants 1 and 5 are their brothers. The second defendant is the first defendant's widow, whose children are defendants 3 and 4. In the first instance, after the death of the mother, defendants 1 and 5 purchased 3/5th share of the three sisters, Karupathal, Nachiammal and Fechiammal leaving outstanding the 1/5th share of Kittammal and 1/5th share of her sister, Subbathal. The present defendants 2 to 4 filed the suit, O.S. No. 152 of 1954, against the present first defendant for partition an...
Tag this Judgment!H.P. Kannan Vs. S. Muthiah Chettiar (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ631
M. Natesan, J. 1. In this case our learned brother Veeraswami, J., while allowing the Second Appeal, granted leave, as he felt himself bound by certain decisions of this Court which required re-consideration in the light of the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. K.A. Dhairavawan v. J.R. Thakur : [1959]1SCR799 . These decisions Ramaswami Pathar v. J.K. Devasthanam : (1963)1MLJ60 , Palaniappa Chettiar v. Vairavan Chettiar : (1963)1MLJ130 , and Palaniappa Chettiar v. Babu. Sahib : (1964)1MLJ110 , have since been held by the Supreme Court in A. R. Saley Mohamed Sail v. Jaffer Mohamed Sait's Memorial Dispensary Charity C.A. Nos. 880 and 881 of 1967, as not laying down the correct law. All that is necessary now is to apply the ruling of the Supreme Court to the facts of the present case and pass appropriate orders. For this it is necessary to set out briefly the facts leading to the dispute and the respective contentions of the parties.2. The plaintiff in a suit for ...
Tag this Judgment!Savarinathan (G.) Vs. Director of Postal Services and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ293Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Though this writ appeal relates to a considerable area of facts traversed in Writ Petition No. 3060 of 1967, which was dealt with by Kailasam, J., the point now before us is a very short one. The writ petitioner was an Assistant Superintendent of the Postal Department at Madras, and he was compulsorily retired from service under certain rules. Admittedly, he was originally in the clerical cadre for some years, and later he became a gazettes officer of the department.2. It is common ground between the department and the writ appellant, represented by Sri V. Rajagopalachari, that the department now seeks to rely on the notification No. 2350, dated 21 July 1965, constituting the Sixth Amendment to the Fundamental Rules. These relate to the age at which such Government servants are due to retire, and the circumstance under which they might be permitted to serve beyond that age. The relevant part of the rules is the amendment to Fundamental Rule 56(c), under which...
Tag this Judgment!Nallanna Gounder Vs. Muthuswamy Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ213
M. Natesan, J.1. This Second Appeal raises the interesting question whether a leasee of agricultural land from the Government could, against the claim for possession by the Government on the expiry of the lease, rely upon the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (Act XXV of 1955). The State claims immunity and exemption from the provisions of the statute hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Courts below have accepted the claim of the State.2. The suit property, river Padugai Poramboke land of an extent of 3 acres and 25 cents, in Senappiratti Village, Katut Taluk, was leased out by the Tahsildar acting for the State Government by Public auction to the plaintiff for a period of three Faslis commencing from Fasli 1353. On the expiry of the period of lease, again, at a public auction the plaintiff became the lessee of the land for Faslis 1365 to 1368. Taking the lease, the plaintiff duly executed a Muchlika on 3rd January, 1958 in favour of the Tahsildai, ag...
Tag this Judgment!G. Savarinathan Vs. the Director of Postal Services and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ595
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Though this writ appeal relates to a considerable area of facts traversed in Writ Petition No. 3060 of 1967, which Was dealt with by Kailasam, J., the point now before us is a very short one. The writ petitioner was an Assistant Superintendent of the Postal Department at Madras, and he was compulsorily retired from service under certain rules. Admittedly, he was originally in the clerical cadre for some years, and later he became a gazetted officer of the Department.2. It is common ground between the Department and the writ appellant, represented by Sri V. Rajagopalachari, that the Department now seeks to rely on the notification No. 2350, dated 21st July, 1965 constituting the Sixth Amendment to the Fundamental Rules. These relate to the age at which such Government servants are due to retire, and the circumstances under which they might be permitted to serve beyond that age. The relevant part of the rules is the amendment to Fundamental Rule 56 (c), under w...
Tag this Judgment!Saleh Bros. Vs. K. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad165
K.S. Ramamurti, J. 1. This Second Appeal arises Out of a suit in ejectment and the tenant who failed in the Courts below is the appellant in the second appeal. The premises in question is situated in Sembudoss Street and the owner and landlord was one Kuppuswamy Naicker now represented by the plaintiffs in the action. By G. O. No. 2216 (Home), dated 5th August, 1958, the Government issued a notification exempting the premises from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. The tenant filed two writ petitions, W. P. Nos. 732 and 733 of 1958 to quash the order of the Government and the petitions were dismissed on 10th November, 1960. The tenant preferred Writ Appeals Nos. 156 and 157 of 1960, therefrom and they too were dismissed on 15th November, 1962. Meanwhile, on 6th October, 1958, within two months after the order of exemption by the Government, the plaintiffs instituted the suit O. S. No. 1822 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »