Chennai Court November 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.
Sri Bharathi Mills Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC347(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The assessee aggrieved mainly against the imposition of penalty by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai-2, has come up to this court. Though he has included in the grounds of appeal that the turnover found to be assessable by the Appellate Tribunal has also to be excluded from the purview of taxation, Mr. Chandrasekhara Sastry. learned counsel for the petitioner, does not press before us any contention otherwise than the propriety of the Tribunal in levying a penalty, though observing that it is a token one.2. The facts necessary to note in this case in so far as the question under dispute is concerned are very simple. The assessee bona fide believed that the purchases of cotton made by them were not last purchases and that, therefore, there was no occasion for them to file a return of such purchases of cotton made by them inside the State of Madras and in fact they did not provide the necessary materials to the taxing authorities in connec...
A.R. Ramiah Vs. Reserve Bank of India (Exchange) (Central Department) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ1
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. While the petitioner herein was carrying on business in Burma, he executed two promissory notes in favour of one V. R. Manickam, and, thereafter in March, 1965, he came to India. The said V. R. Manickam assigned the promissory notes in favour of the second respondent herein, who filed O. S. No. 500 of 1965, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sivaganga, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner was residing. The petitioner in his defence put forward a contention that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the Burma Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, am. that in any event, only a conditional decree could be passed under that Act. The learned District Munsif, overruled the defence and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the second respondent herein applied to the first respondent for permission under Section 2l (3) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for executing the decree and that permission was g...
S. Krishnaswamy Pillai Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ365
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petition claims to be the President of what is called the Kottar Mahimai Trust in Kanyakumari district. According to him it came into existence about 200 years ago having been constituted by tobacco merchants belonging to three castes from out of the Mahimai collected in respect of purchases and sales of tobacco by them. It appears that one of the religious charities for which the trust was contributing was what was called Uchikala Velli Thambala Kattalai in Tiruchendur Temple. On the ground that the contributions to that Kattalai had not been made by the trustees regularly, the trustees of the Tiruchendur temple applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (Administration ) under Section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for the framing of a scheme. A draft scheme has been prepared and that covers not merely the religious charities above mentioned, but also three other religious charities in...
Alavai Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR310(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of bricks. For the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee declared a dividend of Rs. 12,000 at the general body meeting held for the purpose on May 4, 1961. The Income-tax Officer, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 23A, while scrutinising the return of the assessee, found that the dividend was not properly declared and that such a declaration was not in accordance with law, and he therefore called upon the assessee to show cause why additional super-tax under Section 23A should not be levied. It is not necessary for us to scrutinise the quantum of the profits as alleged by the assessee and as noticed by the Income-tax Officer, in view of the ultimate opinion which we are going to render in the instant case. The assessee explained that the distribution of the dividend was reasonable and was a matter which was considered by the general body of the company in questi...
Abu Bucker Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR362(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The assessee owns 150 acres of coffee plantations and another 60 acres of land, in which it is claimed there are orchards and fruit growing trees. As a matter of fact, the assessee daring the course of one assessment year claimed that the approximate income by sale of oranges and all nuts from such orchards, etc., was Rs. 3,000. During the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee after being served with a notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, filed a nil return. The revenue, however, discovered that during the assessment year the assessee purchased a property bearing door No. 20, Godown Street, Madras, in the name of his wife, the total consideration for the purchase of which amounted to Rs. 2,61,935. When confronted with this purchase during the accounting year, the assessee gave an explanation that his wife purchased the property from funds belonging to her, from funds provided by her mother-in-law and the assessee and from funds borrowed b...
Muthuraj Koilpillai Vs. Esther Victoria Kannammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad237
1. This matter comes before us on a reference under Section 20 of the Indian Divorce Act. The District Judge of Tirunelveli has declared the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void and granted a decree of divorce subject to confirmation by this Court.2. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on 5-6-1958 in St. Michael's Church, Polnaickenpatti, Tuticorin. according to Christian rites. There can be no dispute about this. According to the plaintiff, on the very night of the marriage, it was found that the defendant could not have sexaal intercourse with him as she was pushing him aside and finally jumped out of bed. He would say that this was due to insanity and at the time of the marriage he did not know about it. The next day the defendant was removed by her mother to her place for treatment and bringing her back. But the defendant never came back. It appears the defendant was working as a midwife for sometime in the Primary Health Centre, Thiruvengampet...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad290
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The question referred to us under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is:--'Whether Article 45 of Sch. 1 to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 requires that standing crops should be separately valued in assessing the instrument of partition of as-sessed lands for stamp duty.'The facts are extremely simple. The respondent and his father effected a partition of their landed properties on 14th August 1963. The document was stamped with Rs. 13-50. At the time of its registration objection was taken to the proper stamp duty. The executants of the document were required to assess also the value of the standing tea crops on the land and additional duty to be paid thereon.2. There is no dispute that duty chargeable in case of a partition instrument under Article 45 is the same duty as a bond and the amount of duty is quantified with reference to the amount of the value of the separated share or shares of the property. There is a proviso to this Article which provides the mode...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. S.M. Abdul Jammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad288
1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the question being:"Whether the cost of the repairs, additions and improvements to be effected on the premises by the lessees would fall 'within premium or for money advanced' in addition to rent received."One Abdul Jameel, the first respondent, who is the owner of premises No. 22 Errabalu Chetty St., G. T. Madras, entered into an agreement of lease with the second respondent in respect of a major portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 5000. The lease is dated 22-6-1964 and was, in the first instance, for a period of 20 years with an option to renew it for a further period of 7 years. Clauses 7 and 8, which in effect give rise to this reference read:"Clause 7: The lessee shall effect the repairs and make additions and improvements at their own cost, at a cost not less than Rs. two lakhs, such improvements and additions shall also include construction of a building in the vacant plot of land in front of the...
The Reid Co-operative Timber Works Ltd., Madras Vs. Employees' State I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad439; [1971(21)FLR404]; (1970)2MLJ40
Maharajan, J.1. This Is an appeal against the order of the Employees' Insurance Court, Madras decreeing in favour of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation a sum of Rs. 559-62, representing interest at 6 per cent per annum upon the arrears of the employees' contribution (Rs. 4277-80) due by Messrs., Reid Co-operative Timber Works Ltd., Madras for the period from 1-7-1959 to 30-4-1963. The factory has preferred this appeal.2. The contention of the appellant is that no interest is payable on arrears of employees' contribution, either under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act or under the Regulations framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 97 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation would, however, point out that under the Interest Act, 1839. the court is empowered to award interest. Section 1 of the Interest Act prescribes that upon all debts or sums certain payable at a certain time or otherwise, the c...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue Vs. S.M. Abd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ417
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the question being:Whether the cost of the repairs, additions and improvements to be effected on the premises by the lessees would fall' within premium or for money advanced' in addition to rent reserved.2. One Abdul Jammal the first respondent, who is the owner of premises No. 22, Errabalu Chetty Street, George Town, Madras, entered into an agreement of lease with the second respondent in respect of a major portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000. The lease is dated 22nd June, 1964 and was, in the first instance, for a period of twenty years with an option to renew it for a further period of seven years. Clauses 7 and 8, which in effect give rise to this reference read:Clause 7. The lessees shall effect the repairs and make additions and improvements at their own cost, at a cost not less than rupees two lakhs, such improvements and additions shall also include construction of a bui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›