Chennai Court November 1972 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K.P.S.V. Duraiswamy Nadar (Decd.) (by Leg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR473(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a Hindu undivided family and it was one of the three partners of a firm called Messrs. K.P.S.V. Rajarathna Nadar Sons & Co. Prior to August 29, 1957, the assessee wasentitled to a half share in the firm and the other two partners were entitled to a one-fourth share each. By a supplementary deed of partnership dated November 15, 1957, all the partners agreed to a change in the profit-sharing ratio and from August 29, 1957, the assessee's share being fixed at one-third and the shares of the other two partners being fixed at one-third each. The Gift-tax Officer took the view that the relinquishment of one-sixth share by way of reduction of the assessee's share from one-half to one-third without any consideration amounted to a gift in favour of the other two partners of the firm, and called upon the assessee to file a gift-tax return for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee claimed that no gift-tax was attracted, there being no element of ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sivaram Chetty Vs. Srinivasa Odavar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1680
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. From the facts submitted by Mr. Nataraian. learned Counsel for the appellant. G. Sivaram Chetty. the appellant herein died even prior to the framing of the charge by the trial Magistrate. But the trial Magistrate chose to permit his representative to prosecute the proceeding against the accused-respondent, with the result that ultimately the proceedings culminated in conviction before the trial Magistrate. The convicted accused went up in appeal. In the appeal, the accused was acquitted. Against the order of the appellate Judge acquitting the accused-respondent of the offences with which he was charged, the present appeal is directed by the legal representatives of G. Sivaram Chetty who had originally figured as the complainant. Under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am unable to find any support for the representation of the deceased complainant by his legal representatives for prosecuting the appeal against acquittal. In my opinion the criminal appea...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppa Goundar Vs. Sivaprakasam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad115
ORDER1. This revision arises out of an order passed by the District Munsif, Tirukoilur in O.S. No. 999 of 1971, holding that the suit is maintainable without setting aside the sale deed dated 21-4-1964, executed by Dhandapani Pillai to Murugesa Pillai. Such a decision was given by the District Munsif, while taking and trying the issue as to whether the suit without setting aside the sale deed dated 21-4-1964 is not maintainable, as a preliminary issue.2. The plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, filed the suit to recover possession of the properties comprised in the sale deed dated 21-4-1964, Ex. B.1. According to the plaintiffs, one Uthandia Pillai executed Ex. A.1 settlement deed dated 21-3-1959 in favour of the first plaintiff and other plaintiffs who were not born at the time of Ex. A.1. The very same Uthandia Pillai who is no other than the grandfather of the plaintiffs, executed Ex. A.2 on 20-11-1959 making the first plaintiff as the sole legatee thereunder. Subsequent t...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Narayanan and ors. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR393(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In these writ petitions the petitioners seek to quash the assessment orders made against them by the concerned Wealth-tax Officer. The assessment orders are attacked by the petitioners on two grounds : (1) the provisions of the Finance Act of 1969 seeking to include agricultural lands in the definition of ' asset' in the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is ultra vires and unconstitutional as Parliament had no legislative competence to enact a law seeking to levy a tax on agricultural lands; and (2) the proviso to Section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as amended by the Finance Act of 1969, is liable to be struck down as discriminatory in that it has made invidious and hostile discrimination by granting higher exemption to assessees who own agricultural lands and other assessees who own other assets, and that the higher exemption relating to agricultural lands alone is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The first contention has at once to be rejected in view of...
Tag this Judgment!A Dhoddiah Chettiar Vs. Madukkarai (Niligiris) Estates Tea Factory by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ146
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 due under a dishonoured cheque Exhibit A-1 dated 10th October, 1961 issued in his favour by the second defendant as the managing partner of the first defendant firm. It is alleged by the plaintiff that 12-64 acres of tea garden belonging to him were conveyed to one T. K. Mani the nominee of the second defendant by a sale deed dated 7th July, 1961 for Rs. 15,000 that the second defendant paid Rs. 10,000 in cash and issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 5,000 in the name of the plaintiff and that when the cheque was presented for payment to the State Bank of India, Coonoor on 11th October, 1961 it returned it with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The defendants admitted the issue of a cheque for Rs. 5,000 in favour of the plaintiff but contended that it is not supported by consideration. Their case was that the second defendant was proposing to purchase certain properties fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppa Gounder Vs. Sivaprakasam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ186
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This revision arises out of an order passed by the District Munsif, Tirukoilur in. O.S. No. 999 of 1971, holding that the suit is maintainable without setting aside the sale deed, dated 21st April, 1964 executed by Dhandapani Pillai to Murugesa Pillai. Such a decision was given by the District Munsif while taking and trying the issue as to whether the suit without setting aside the sale deed, dated 21st April, 1964 is not maintainable, as a preliminary issue.2. The plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 4 herein, filed the suit to recover possession of the properties comprised in the sale deed, dated 21st April, 1964,' Exhibit B-1. According to the plaintiffs, one Uthandia Pillai executed Exhibit A-1, settlement deed, dated 21st March, 1959 in favour of the first plaintiff and the other plaintiffs who were not born at the time of Exhibit A-1. The very same Uthandia Pillai who is no other than the grandfather of the plaintiffs, executed Exhibit A-2, on 10th ...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Appanda Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad276; (1973)1MLJ263
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. Sri Deepanayakaswami temple in Nannilam taluk, Tanjavur District is a Jain institution. By a notification of Government dated the 8th October, 1960, the appellant was called upon to show cause why the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, should not be extended to it. A schedule to the notification listed the ground on which the proposal to apply the Act was made. Objections were preferred by the appellant; but they did not find acceptance. The result was that the Act was made applicable to the institution. The Government purported to exercise its power, in this regard, under Section 2(1) of the Act. There is no complaint that the procedure prescribed by the proviso to the sob-section has not been adopted in this case. A petition by the under Art. 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the notification failed. Hence this appeal by the trustee.2. Two points, which were urged before Ramakrishnan J. are reiter...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.N. Chandrasekharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad117
1. These appeals by the State are filed against a common judgment of Palaniswamy, J., who struck down the Indian Stamp (Madras Amendment) Act. 1967, as unconstitutional. He did so on the view that substitution of "consideration" by "market value" in the Indian Stamp Act has converted stamp duty into a tax on property, and that it also violated Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. In our opinion, this view cannot be sustained.2. We agree with him that stamp duty is a duty on an instrument as defined in the Stamp Act, and that this concept as to the character of the duty is in accordance with the British and Indian Legislative practice, and the scope of Entry 44 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, to wit "stamp duty other than the duties or fees collected by means of judicial stamps, but not including rates of stamp duty." But we cannot agree with him that the substitution made by the Amending Act has altered the character of the duty. While stamp duty is a cha...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamani Ammal Vs. Bhoorasami Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad36
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed a suit for a declaration of her title to the suit properties consisting of 8 items and or possession of the same from the defendants with mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to her mother Alamelu Ammal, she having purchased the same with her own funds from one Venkatachala Padayachi under a sale deed Ex. A.2 dated 8-4-1935 for a sum of Rs. 500, that the plaintiff has become the stridhana heir of her mother, and that as the plaintiff was a minor at the time of her mother's death her father Kannusami Padayachi and after his death the first defendant, her brother, had been managing the suit properties on her behalf. The plaintiff alleged that neither her father, Kannusami Padayachi nor her brother, the first defendant, had any right or interest over the suit properties, but that taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff had just attained majority, the first defendant obtained a registered rele...
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Administration an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR255(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In the above three writ petitions, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Income-tax Officer, levying penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the submission of the returns for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 after a delay of 26, 18 and 31 months respectively. The grounds urged in the writ petitions originally were two-fold: (1) that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) in respect of all the three years violated Article 14 of the Constitution ; and (2) that the levy of penalty under Section 271(lXa) as well as interest under Section 139(1) of the new Act for delayed submission of the return is invalid as amounting to a double penalty for the same default. On the first question the petitioner's contention was that the levy of penalty under Section 297(2)(g) read with Section 271(1) for the offences under Section 28 violated Article 14 of the Constitution as the liability for penalty and the quantum thereof have to depend on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »