Chennai Court February 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.
L.E. Mohamed HussaIn and ors. Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Customs, R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad464
ORDERKailasam, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the power of the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation Economic Offences Wing, to investigate an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the power of the Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance to take proceedings under Sections 23(1) (a) and 23-D- of the Act are questioned. In W. P. 3536 of 1968 the petitioner Messrs. Bheru Manufacturing Co. prays for the issue of a writ of quo warranto calling upon the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation to show the validity of his appointment and his exercising powers in Madras State in respect of offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The same petitioner in W. P. 3537 of 1968, has prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Enforcement Directorate from taking any action for adjudication under Section 23(1). In the other Writ petitions the same questions that are raised i...
Madurai Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas946(Mad); [1969]74ITR623(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This tax case comes upon a requisition made by the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessment year is 1961-62. The assessee, a public limited company, held shares in three private companies: Indian Mills Supply Company (Private) Ltd., Harveys (Private) Ltd. and Pandyan Weaving Mills (Private) Ltd. The assessee held variegated shares in the above companies. It is common ground that the three private companies as above went into members' voluntary liquidation. In the year of account and in the course of liquidation proceedings the voluntary liquidators distributed the assets of the three companies which went into liquidation, and as a result thereof the assessee obtained cash or assets in the shape of shares in other companies and immovable properties in lieu of its holdings in the respective private companies. The statement of the case discloses the number of shares held by the assessee-company in the private companies and also ...
Popular Transport (Registered) Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ619Mad
Sadasivam, J.1. Petition by Popular Transport (registered) for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from collecting the amount of Re. 9,294.45, made up of Rs 4,817.45 representing the contributions for the period May 1969 to July 1961 and Rs. 4,477 representing damages. Daring the arguments learned advocate for the petitioner confined this petition to the payment of Rs. 4,477 for damages alone and did not question the recovery of Rs. 4,817.45 representing contributions.2. Learned advocate for the petitioner urged two contentions before me. Contention (1) is that the levy of damages is illegal as he was given be opportunity to make representations against the same and he relied on the decisions in Madras-Bangalore Transport Company v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Madras 1969 I.L.J. 136 and Bharat Barrel and Drum . v. Raval (B.N.) and Anr. 1966 I.L.J. 804, in support of his contention. In the former decision Ramakrishnan. J., has elaborately discussed the ...
V. Devaraj Vs. Jayalakhmi Ammal (Decsd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ429
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff is the first son while the second defendant is the second son of one M. Venkatesam Chettiar, who died on 17th June, 1965. The said Venkatesam Chettiar, in 1937 or 1940, started a business under the name and style of Doraikannu and Company with a small capital coming out of his own earnings. Out of the income from the said business, the said Venkatesam Chettiar, purchased a large number of items of properties. The plaintiff herein instituted C.S. No. 399 of 1954, on the file of this Court impleading his father as 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant herein as the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant herein (mother of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant) as the 3rd defendant, for partition of certain properties. In that suit, he prayed that an account may be taken of what the joint properties of the said family were, that an account may be taken of the profits of the business referred to above and also prayed for partition of his one-third share in the said pro...
Popular Transports (Regd.) Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ491
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petition by Popular Transport (Registered) for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from collecting the amount of Rs. 9,294.45 made up of Rs. 4,817.45 representing the contributions for the period May, 1959, to July, 1961 and Rs. 4,477 representing damages. During the arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner confined this petition to the payment of Rs. 4,477 for damages alone and did not question the recovery of Rs. 4,817.45 representing contributions.2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner urged two contentions before me. The first contention is that the levy of damages is illegal as he was given no opportunity to make representations against the same and he relied on the decisions in Messrs. Madras Bangalore Transport Co. v. Commissioner, Regional Provident Funds, Madras : (1969)2MLJ156 , in support of his contention. In the former case, Ramakrishnan, J., has elaborately discussed the nature of the levy of damages by the Administrativ...
The Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Supply and Marketing Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ602
K.S. Palaniswami, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower Court, the Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff-society was acting as Stockists for manure on commission on behalf of the State of Madras, the second respondent herein. On 27th August, 1963, the Assistant Director, Clearance, Madras, despatched to the plaintiff-society certain quantity of Ammonium Sulphate. When the plaintiff-society wanted to take delivery of the goods at Coimbatore, the Station Master at Coimbatore demanded Rs. 1,041-30 nP. as being under charges, demurrage and other charges. The plaintiff-society paid it under protest and called upon the railway to refund the amount. As the claim was not met, the plaintiff-society instituted the suit impleading the Union of India, owning the Southern Railway as the first defendant and the State of Madras as the second defendant and prayed for a decree for Rs. 1,221-30 nP.2. The first def...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. S.A.P. Annamalai, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad52; [1970]75ITR109(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62. The assessment was in the status of Hindu undivided family which consisted of Annamalai, the Kartha, and his minor son. Annamalai is a Master of Arts and a Law Graduate. He was engaged as an Editor of a Tamil magazine by name 'Kumudam'. The assessee claimed deduction of a certain sum for each of the year as a deduction in the computation of the income from the magazine. There is no dispute that for each year the amount claimed was paid to Annamalai as remuneration for his services as Editor of the magazine. The Revenue disallowed it; but the Tribunal accepted the claim. The question before us is:'Where on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the remuneration of Rs. 9000. Rs. 6000 and Rs. 9000 paid in each of the years to S. A. P. Annamalai could be a deduction the computation of the income of Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 respectively?'We are of the view t...
Sarvshri G. Annamalai Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Controller of Estate D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad265
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One A. Ar. Annamalai Chettiar died on August 9, 1957 leaving a will dated April 24, 1957, in and by which he bequeathed his estate in favour of his grandsons, who are the accountable persons. They filed a return showing the principal value of the estate that passed on the deceased's death at Rs, 1,57,090, The Assistant Controller, however, fixed the principal value at Rs. 1,81,185. Two items, among others, were in dispute. (1) a sum of Rs. 77,227 outstanding due to the deceased in Burma in the course of his money lending business and (2) includibility, in the principal value of compensation in respect of a part of the lands notified in Burma and taken over. The Revenue has taken the view that since the only restriction in respect of the outstandings was about repatriation of funds, there is no sufficient reason why they should be excluded in computing the principal value of the deceased's estate. As ...
C.P. Venkataraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR65(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference involves a penalty proceeding andrelates to the assessment year 1952-53. Four sums were added to theincome returned by the assessee in his individual capacity, after rejecting his explanation. It appears that in an appeal arising out of the assessment, the Tribunal corrected the status of the assessee as Hindu undivided family. But the penalty proceedings were continued in the name of the assessee in his individual capacity, which resulted in the levy of a penalty of Rs. 7,700. The Tribunal concurred with the revenue that the penalty was properly levied. But on a consideration of one of the items in respect of which explanation had to be given by the assessee many years prior to the institution of the proceedings, it reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000. In the circumstances, the following question is referred :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,000 is justified?'2. We think, for the reasons which will a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Fenner Cockill Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR394(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The short question in this reference is, whether reconditioned machinery, which has been imported from abroad, is within the ambit of Section 15C(2)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. We are of opinion that it is. The reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62. The assessee, a registered limited liability company, was primarily engaged in the manufacture of certain types of V Belts and other rubber goods used in the textile industry. During the previous year ended March 31, 1961, it started the manufacture of some other industrial rubber goods, such as synthetic rubber coats, aprons, etc., under a separate industrial licence granted to it by the Government. The new unit was run in the name of 'Resilla division'. Separate trading and profit and loss accounts were prepared for these two items of business. The assessee purchased machineries worth Rs. 2,36,885 from an overseas company, which were admittedly second-hand but reconditioned. The assessee incurred an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »