Chennai Court February 1973 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.
T. Kuppammal Vs. T. Natarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad468; (1973)2MLJ331
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This reference relates to court-fee and made on the view that there is conflict of decision on the interpretation of Section 40(1) of the Madras Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1955. In Arunachalathammal v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai (1970) 83 MLW 789, Kailasam J. held that court-fee should be assessed on the value for which the document was executed and not on the market value. In Sengoda Nadar v. Doraisami Gounder : AIR1971Mad380 which was concerned with a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. Sadasivam J. considered that in view of Kutumba Sastri v. Sundarammal, ILR (1939) Mad 764 AIR 1939 Mad 462, a Full Bench decision, fee was exigible on the market value of the property covered by the document sought to be set aside. The instant case is of a plant seeking to set aside a final decree in a partition suit, in which the property forming the security of the mortgage in favor of the petitioner was not allotted to the mortgagor, but to another sharer. The petitioner i...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.M. Desikar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR101(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case filed wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 admitting a net wealth of Rs. 14,65,569 and Rs. 15,72,944, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer determined the net wealth for the first year at Rs. 14,91,678 and for the second year at Rs. 15,77,003. The net wealth of the assessee in those two years included the value of certain shares held by the assessee. The assessee had valued the shares on the basis of their book value on December 29, 1959, and October 19, 1960, respectively. The value of the shares as furnished by the assessee had been originally accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. 2. Later, the Wealth-tax Officer, in the proceedings for assessment for the year 1961-62 did not accept the value of the shares returned by the assessee on the basis of their book value, but adopted the actual market value as the basis of valuation. The result was while the net wealth furnished by the assessee for that year based on the book ...
Best and Company Private Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ331
ORDERK. N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This writ petition filed by the petitioner is directed against the order of the Labour Court, Madras, dated 1st February, 1972 passed in LA. No. 608 of 1971 in I.D. No. 140 of 1968.2. A brief recital of facts leading to the present writ petition would be helpful for a proper conclusion in this matter. One Murugesan was dismissed by the petitioner on 23rd May, 1968. All the other workmen in the employment of the petitioner struck work from 23rd May, 1968 protesting against the dismissal of Murugesan. Although the strike was illegal in view of the pendency of I.D. No. 60 of 1967 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and I.D. No. 64 of 1967 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, it continued. On 29th June, 1968 the question relating to the dismissal of Murugesan was referred for industrial adjudication to the Labour Court, Madras. Even subsequently, the strike was not called off. On the contrary, the workmen continued the strike. The petitioner publi...
The Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Calcutta and anr. Vs. the Cromp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad261
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated nth July, 1...
C. Kuttappa Nair and anr. Vs. S.S.A. Shahul Hameed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad388; (1973)2MLJ55
ORDER1. The three revision petitions have been filed by three of the tenants against a common order of the Appellate authority remanding the eviction petitions for fresh disposal. Seven petitioners claiming to be entitled to the premises in question filed eviction petitions against various tenants. The Rent Controller found that the petitions were not maintainable on the ground that all the persons who are entitled to rights in the premises in question were not parties. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the petitions were maintainable, and remanded back the petitions to the Rent Controller for disposal on other matters of controversy in the light of the observations made by the appellate authority. In the three revision petitions filed by the three tenants, the main contention raised is that the appellate authority has no right to remand the matter for fresh disposal to the Rent Controller.2. The power of the appellate authority is defined in Section 23 of the Madras Buildin...
R. Srinivasan and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR431(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As both the references are Connected, they are dealt with together.2. T.C. No. 114 of 1967 relates to the assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the year 1961-62 and T.C. No. 115 of 1967 relates to the penalty proceedings in respect of the same year.3. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of handloom goods with its head office in Madurai. It has weaving centres at Palayamkottah and other places for the manufacture of handloom goods. In the previous year ending on 16th August, 1960, corresponding to the assessment year 1961-62, it returned an income of Rs. 73,519. The said return showed a total turnover of Rs. 12,47,047 and the gross profit at Rs. 1,27,176. The gross profit returned worked out to 9.4 per cent. as against the gross profit rate of 10.8 per cent. in the previous year. The assessee had maintained a thari register to record the issue of yarn and art silk to weavers. The signature of the weavers to who...
The Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Crompton Engine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ424
V.V. Raghavan, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. T. R. Rajakumari.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR78(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - The assessee is a cine actress. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1952-53, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 36,000 from Messrs. Jupiter Pictures. The assessee has not included this amount in her return of income for that year and, therefor, the original assessment for that year had been completed on June 30, 1955, without including the said amount in her income. After the completion of the original assessment, the Income-tax Officer had received information that the said amount represented her income and, therefore, he issued a notice dated October 9, 1957, proposing to reopen the assessment under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In answer to the said notice the assessee contended that the amount in question was only a loan taken by her from Jupiter Pictures and that it had to repaid by adjustment when her work with Jupiter Pictures was completed. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the said contention and, therefore, included t...
M. Munuswamy and anr. Vs. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad112
1. These civil revision petitions are placed before us because Kailasam, J., was unable to agree with the view in Natesa Pillai v. Mahalinga Padayachi, 1961 (2) Mad LJ 246 as to the scope of sub-section (5) of Section 4-A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The petitioner in each of the petitions is a tenant and seeks to revise the order of the concerned Authorised Officer for resumption of land from the relative cultivating tenant. The question turns on whether a purchaser from a landlord subsequent to the date mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 4-A will not be hit by the inhibition imposed by sub-section (5). This precise matter was considered by one of us in Kothanda Pillai v. Devaraja Reddy, . It was there held that sub-section (5) fixed not merely a ceiling in respect of the extent with reference to which right to resume for personal cultivation was given, but also drew a line on time so that any change subsequent thereto in the circumstances of the landlo...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. H.N. Markandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR144(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One Cundaswamy Chettiar, executed a settlement deed dated 6th October, 1941, transferring some, of his absolute properties in, favour of his son, Neelakantan, subject to the following conditions, namely :(i) that Neelakantan should hold the properties in trust for the benefit of his sons without power of alienation during his lifetime ;(ii) that he should receive only Rs. 125 per month from out of the income of the properties for the expenses of maintaining himself and his children ;(iii) that he should pay a sum of Rs. 20 per month to the settlor's daughter, Kamakshi Animal, during her lifetime ;(iv) that he should spend certain specified amounts out of the income from the properties for the marriage of his daughters ; and(v) that on the death of Neelakantan, the properties were to be distributed among his legitimate sons.2. The settlor died in the year 1950 and his son, Neelakantan, died on November 15,1961. The second son of Neelakantan filed an account of the estate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »