Chennai Court December 1972 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.
Verco Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Newandram Naraindas and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ92
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O.S. No. 106 of 1967, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who succeeded before the trial Judge, but lost before the Appellate Judge are the appellants herein. The suit was instituted by the first respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,216, on the basis of Exhibit A-2, the promissory note, said to have been executed by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant as its Managing Director. The suit has been filed under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint avers that the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000 under the promissory note Exhibit A-2, with interest thereon at 1.80 per cent. per mensem and that in respect of the said promissory note, the first defendant has paid to the plaintiff only Rs. 6,000 and failed to pay the balance. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that the defendants are liable to pay the balance of Rs. 4,000 ...
Bombay Hardware Syndicate Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR160(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a firm carrying on business in hardware. During the accounting year ending October 23, 1957, it applied and got a licence from the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi, for importing 205 electric motors under a scheme formulated by the Government of India for import of electric motors for the use of the agriculturists. Under that scheme the applicant for an import licence should get requisitions for the supply of electric motors from agriculturists who require motors and send them along with the application for licence. During the assessment year 1958-59 corresponding to the accounting year ending October 23, 1957, the assessee had sold 198 motors out of the said imports. It submitted a return of its income for that year showing its total income as Rs. 93,484. 2. The Income-tax Officer, in the course of the assessment proceedings wanted to find out whether the imported motors had in fact been sold to the concerned agriculturist...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division Vs. H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC228(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In T.C. No. 195 of 1968, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division, is the petitioner. The respondent is a dealer in paddy, rice and coconuts and doing business in Kumbakonam. For the assessment year 1963-64, the total and taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 6,74,269.23 and Rs. 3,63.100.08 as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,23,837.13 and Rs. 2,83,000.73. In determining the taxable turnover, the assessing officer disallowed a claim of exemption to an extent of Rs. 12,482 relating to sales of coconut. In addition to this, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 28,064.86 as suppressions noticed as per slips recovered during an inspection and a sum of Rs. 30,457.75 being 10 per cent of the taxable turnover towards probable omissions. The respondent-assessee disputed the addition and also the disallowance of the claim of exemption and filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tanjore, without success. T...
R. Natesan and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ103
ORDERM. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This revision has been filed by accused 3 to 5 in S.T.C. No. 239 of 1970 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, who were convicted under Section (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3-A of Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) Order, 1964 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 each, by the Additional First Class Magistrate. Accused 1 and 2 who were also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 each, have not challenged the conviction.2. The prosecution case is briefly this: P.W. 2 Natarajan, the Sub-Inspector of Police (Food Cell) C.I.D., Nagercoil, was patrolling the belt area in Kanyakumari District at a place called Padmanabhapuram at about 5 A.M., on 25th March, 1970. P.W.1, Hasan Mian, a Police constable, attached to the Food Cell was also with P.W. 2. They saw a lorry M.D.U. 8834 (M.O.1) coming on the road from south to north. P.W. 2 intercepted that lorry and checked it. A...
S. Sethurathinam Piliai Vs. Barbara Alias Dolly Sethurathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ386
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. Crl. R.G. No. 1202 of 1971 arises out of the order of dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner for cancellation of maintenance under Section 489 (2), Criminal Procedure Code and Crl.R.C. No. 1203 of 1971 arises out of allowing the petition of the respondent for enforcement of the order of maintenance even subsequent to the decision of the civil Court. As the facts and points for consideration are common in both these petitions, they are disposed of together.2. The respondent and her daughter filed an application for maintenance under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, on the ground that the respondent was the legally married wife of the petitioner, that the daughter was born to them and that the petitioner had failed and neglected to maintain them. The learned Additional First Class Magistrate held that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not proved ...
Karunaiananda Nadar Vs. V.S.V. Senthiappa Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad477; (1973)1MLJ418
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 352 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif Sattur, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the appellant for the issue of a mandatory injunction compelling the respondent herein to remove the sun shade which he put up on his own property. The allegation of the appellant was that he was entitled to a pathway of 18 ft. wide, having purchased that right of way under Ex. A-2, dated 31-1-1960, registration copy of a sale deed and Ex. A-3 dated 18-1-1960, a registered sale deed, from the owners of the land and consequently as the disputed sun shade obstructs his right of way, he was entitled to have a mandatory injunction for the removal thereof. It is admitted that the size of the sun shade is 2 1/4 ft. in width protruding into the pathway and 8' in length. Consequently out of 18' width of the pathway, the obstructed portion is only 2 1/4'. The question was considered by the Courts below as to wheth...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1972
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas33(Mad); [1973]92ITR477(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As both the references arise out of the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, they can be disposed of together.2. The assessee is a limited company, hereinafter called the company, carrying on business of manufacture and sale of yarn. The managing agents of the company was a partnership-firm called ' S. N. Rangaswamy Naidu & Sons ', hereinafter called ' the firm '. One R. Doraiswamy Naidu was one of the partners of this firm. He was also employed as manager in the company from the year 1952, as he was technically qualified. The firm was entitled to a total remuneration of ten per cent. of the net profits of the company or Rs. 35,000, whichever is higher. The managing agents were actually paid a remuneration of Rs. 35,000 in each of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. In the said assessment years the said R. Doraiswamy Naidu in his capacity as manager of the company had received remuneration of Rs. 24,900, Rs. 26,100 and Rs. 27,300 respectively....
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Ramkrishnan Mills (Coimbatore) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR49(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - As both the references arise out of the same order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, they can be disposed of together.The assessee is a limited company, hereinafter called the company, carrying on business of manufacture and sale of yarn. The managing agents of the company was a partnership-firm called 'S. N. Rangaswamy Naidu & Sons', hereinafter called 'the firm called' S. N. Rangaswamy Naidu was one of the partners of this firm. He was also employed as manager in the company from the year 1952, as he was technically qualified. The firm was entitled to a total remuneration of ten per cent, of the net profits of the company or Rs. 35,000 whichever is higher. The managing agents were actually paid a remuneration of Rs. 35,000 in each of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61. In the said assessment years the said R. Doraiswamy Naidu in his capacity as manager of the company had received remuneration Naidu in his capacity as manager of the company had receiv...
Sivathi Ammal Vs. Arulayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad34
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the judgment-debtor against the order of the learned District Munsif of Paramakudi in E.A. 366 of 1972 in E.P. 27 of 1972 in O.S. No. 163 of 1963. E.A. 366 of 1972 was filed by the respondents herein for permission to bid and set off. The suit is one for partition and the decree-holders are entitled to certain shares and as the judgment-debtor committed default in payment of certain money which she was directed to pay to equalise her shares, the execution petition was taken. In granting leave to the respondents herein to bid and set off, the Court considered the upset price. In the counter to the execution petition the judgment-debtor stated that the property in worth Rs. 10,000. In the application for permission to bid and set off, the judgment-debtor stated that the property was worth Rs. 12,000. The Court declined to accept that there was any increase in the value. It observed that 'it has been ordered in the execution petition that the bid has to b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Meccano Floorings (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR352(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company doing business in the manufacture and sale of mosaic tiles, etc. The share capital of the company consists of 55 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The commercial profits for the year ended March 31, 1959, as per audited accounts was Rs. 19,645. A sum of Rs. 3,109 was paid towards arrears of tax and the tax for the year was Rs. 13,308. In the general body meeting held on October 12, 1959, it was resolved that no dividend shall be declared for the year ending March 31, 1959. For the year ending March 31, 1960, the company returned a loss of Rs. 18,805 and ultimately the High Court determined the loss when the amount was disputed by the department at Rs. 16,696. Since the assessee had not distributed any dividend the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to show cause why additional super-tax should not be levied under Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The assessee submitted that after...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »