Chennai Court January 1969 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.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Chidambaram, Partner, Thachana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad5
1. The Reference before us arises from the following situation and facts. There was a trading joint Hindu family, the assets of which were involved in certain protracted partition proceedings in A.S. No. 223 of 1959 in this Court from O.S. No. 97 of 1952 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. By virtue of a decree of Court, Chidambaram Chettiar, one of the parties to that litigation and a member of the family, agreed to take certain mill properties and machinery relating thereto, for Rs. 3,30,000. An instrument was executed on 6th June, 1962 as between the ten parties who are respondents, including this Chidambaram Chettiar, styled a partnership deed, under Clause (8) of which the aforesaid sugar mills, distilleries, rice mill and accretions, dealt with by the decree in A.S. No. 223 of 1959, were declared as properties of the partnership firm, including Chidambaram Chettiar as a member thereof. The partnership was created under this document, Clause (4) purporting to set fo...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Chidambaram, Partner, Thac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ91
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The Reference before us arises from the following situation and facts. There was a trading joint Hindu family, the assets of which were involved in certain protracted partition proceedings in A.S. No. 223 of 1959 in this Court from O.S. No. 97 of 1952 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. By virtue of a decree of Court, Chidambaram Chettiar, one of the parties to that litigation and a member of the family, agreed to take certain mill properties and machinery relating thereto, for Rs. 3,30,000. An instrument was executed on 6th June, 1962 as between the ten parties who are respondents, including this Chidambaram Chettiar, styled a partnership deed, under Clause (8) of which the aforesaid sugar mills, distilleries, rice mill and accretions, dealt with by the decree in A.S. No. 223 of 1959, were declared as properties of the partnership firm, including Chidambaram Chettiar as a member thereof. The partnership was created under this document, Clause ...
Maduari K. Rengiah Chettiar and Co., Madurai Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad34
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. His case was that a consignment of 145 bags of gramdhal was booked from Jakhodhere to Tuticorin under invoice No. 2 dated 10-7-1962, a copy of which was marched by the plaintiff himself as Ex. A-1. The goods arrived at Tuticorin on 3-8-1962. According to P.W. 1, the goods were emitting a bad smell and the packages were considerably damaged. Such damage to the packages was noticed by P.W. 1 even on 3-8-1962. A request was made on 5-8-1962 to the railway authorities for the assessment of the damage to the packages and on such a requisition, the packages were examined and a certificate of damage was issued on 8-8-1962, and the petitioner secured open delivery of the consignment. On the basis of the certificate of damage, he made a claim on the Chief Commercial Manager under the provision of the Indian Railways Act on 9-9-1962. The railway repudiated the liability.The petitioner issued a notice Ex. A-6 under Section 80. C. P. C. on 7-8-1963...
Dharmambal Achi Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ544
K. Veeraswami, J. 1. The main contention for the petitioner is that in the light of Golak Nath v. State of Punjab : [1967]2SCR762 we should reconsider Krishnaraju Reddiar v. Authorised Officer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 179 : I.L.R. (1967) 3 Mad. 109, which upheld the validity of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Act was struck down by Krishnaswami V. State of Madras : [1964]7SCR82 , as violative of the fundamental rights. That was on 9th March, 1964, but the Parliament on 20th June, 1964, enacted the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 which included the Act in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. The validity of the Seventeenth Amendment was unsuccessfully questioned before the Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : [1965]1SCR933 . It was there held by the majority opinion that Article 13 (2) did not affect the Amendment of the Constitution made under Article 368 and that the power to amend the Constitution conferred by Article 368...
R.M. Solai Nadar Vs. A.T.A.V. Guruswami Nadar and Co. Represented by A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ629
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner-landlord is for a second time in this Court in the same proceedings wherein he sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant, under old Section 7 (3) (a) (iii) as amended by Madras Act VIII of 1951 and new Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Act XVIII of 1960, from a non-residential building of his in the town of Madurai. Though the proceedings was initiated under the earlier Act as amended by Act VIII of 1951, yet it is not disputed that it is governed by the provisions of Act XVIII of 1960. The petitioner was unsuccessful throughout and when he came to this Court in C.R.P. No. 2154 of 1963, Alagiriswami, J. set aside the order of the District Judge on the ground that he did not apply his mind to the crucial question involved in the petition, whether the requirement of the non-residential premises by the petitioner was bona fide or not. The matter was remanded to his file and once again the learned District Judge has disposed of the matter laconically an...
Madurai K. Rangiah Chettiar and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ393
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. His case was that a consignment of 145 bags of gramdhal was booked from Jakhodhere to Tuticorin under invoice No. 2 dated 10th July, 1962, a copy of which was marked by the plaintiff himself as Exhibit A-1. The goods arrived at Tuticorin on 3rd August, 1962. According to P.W. 1, the goods were emitting a bad smell and the packages were considerably damaged. Such damage to the packages was noticed by P.W. 1 even on 3rd August, 1962. A request was made on 5th August, 1962, to the railway authorities for the assessment of the damages to the packages and on such a requisition, the packages were examined and a certificate of damage was issued on 8th August, 1962, and the petitioner secured open delivery of the consignment. On the basis of the certificate of damage, he made a claim on the Chief Commercial Manager under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act on 9th September, 1962. The railway repudiated the liability. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.R.M.S. Narayanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR329(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These two references are connected and come before us at the instance of the Commissioner. They pertain to the assessment year 1958-59. The two questions are:' 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital gains of $ 17,576 (Rs. 27,243) is liable to capital gains tax ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not considering the amount as capital gains on the score that no tax was payable on such capital gains in view of the net loss computed under other heads ' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, it is clear it should be answered in favour of the assessee. It is true the assessee made the capital gains. But the total effect of the return made by him was one of loss which absorbed the capital gains, so that no levy of tax on capital gains could arise. As to the second question, it has not been properly phrased. We modify it to read as follows :' Whether, on the facts and in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.S. Pandaria Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR457(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The assessee who, during the assessment year 1962-63, to which the reference relates, was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of washing soaps, collected from regular stockists of the soaps manufactured by the assessee and sold to them by him, half a per cent. of the sale price. This was separately shown in the relative bills as for Mummoorthy Vinayagar Charity. The total of the collections amounted to Rs. 2,270. No portion of this amount would appear to have been actually spent by the assessee towards the charity. The Tribunal, differing from the revenue, held that this amount did not form part of the assessee's income for the year. The Commissioner of Income-tax has brought up this reference :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,270 was not includible as the income of the assessee? '2. The question, in our view, borders almost on facts and we feel the referen...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (Private ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR638(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The two references are connected, the one under Section 66(1) and the other under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act,1922. The two questions are : ' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessce-company was not liable to the additional super-tax under Section 23A in respect of the asscssee's industrial profits for the assessment year 1957-58 ; (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that additional super-tax is not leviable under Section 23A of the Act, in respect of any portion of the profits of the assessce-company for the assessment year 1957-58 ?' 3. The matter relates to the assessment year 1957-58. The assessee is a private limited company, whose assessment for that year was computed ona total income of Rs. 37,95,774. Out of this income, it is common ground that Rs. 3,36,504 was available for distribution in respect of industri...
Mrs. Subhadra Ben Manilal Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ249
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The short question for consideration in these Writ petitions is whether the petitioner's application to the Collector (who had pasted an award under the Land Acquisition Act) for the purpose of making a reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, was in time. The petitioner took the stand that though she had filed a claim regarding the amount of compensation at the earlier stage of the award proceedings, she was not intimated about the passing of the award as required under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The first time when she got intimation of the award was when she went to the Collector's Officer and received the compensation amount under protest on 23rd April, 1965. Treating that date as the earliest date when she had knowledge of the Collector's award she had 6 months' time thereafter to make the application under Section 18. She applied on 1st October, 1965 to the Collector to make the required reference. This was well within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »