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.
E. Muniswamy Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ207
ORDERVeeraswami, C.J.1. These civil revision petitions are placed before us because Kailasam, J., was unable to agree with the view in Natesa Pillai v. Mahalingam Padayachi (1961) 2 M.L.J. 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 : AIR1966Mad434 . 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 there...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kadri Mills Coimbatore Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR378(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacture and sale of yarn. Its managing agents were a firm called 'G. Krishna & Co.' One V. Ramaswami Naidu was a partner of that firm.2. In the previous year ending on December 31, 1951, corresponding to the assessment year 1952-53 the assessee returned an income of Rs. 12,21,316. The assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer by making the following additions :Rs.inflation in cotton purchases 1,00,000 Black market profits on sale of yarn not brought into account 1,00,000The first item of addition of Rs. 1,00,000 represented Rs. (a)Inflation in the purchase price as per contract No. 103 dated 17-3-195124,132 (b)Cost of 100 candies of inferior quality cotton alleged to have been passed off as superior quality cotton50,000 (c)Inflation in Karunganni cotton purchases5,000 (d)Other items including probable bogus items according to the Income-tax Officer 25,500The total of Rs. 1,04,132 was rounded t...
Balarama Varma Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1973
Reported in: [1973]92ITR485(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a public limited company. In the previous year ending December 31, 1961, corresponding to the assessment year 1962-63, it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 14,160 paid by way of gratuity the details of which are set out below :Employee's nameMonthly salary Years of serviceGratuity paid1234 Rs.Rs.1.P. C. Ramakrishnan (Factory Manager)60011 Years7,6602.K. Ranganathan (Cotton Clerk)23510 Years1,5003.Kondaswamy (Head Clerk.)3249 Years5.000Total 14,1602. For the assessment year 1963-64, corresponding to the previous year ending December 31, 1962, the assessee claimed deduction by way of gratuity, a sum of Rs. 7,000 paid to one Rangian, a cashier of the company. All the sums were disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that there was no scheme for payment of gratuity and that the receipts for payment of the said gratuity amounts showed that they have been paid as ex gratia in view of their past services. The Income-tax Officer purported...
M. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: [1973]91ITR492(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following question has been referred :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material to hold that the partial partition was not true and whether the inclusion of the income of the Iyer Merah Estate and the disallowance of the interest paid to the daughters of the assessee as karta are justified in law ?'2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family represented by its karta. Sri M. Chockalingam Chettiar. During the assessment proceedings for the year 1957-58, the assessee claimed that there was a complete partition of the family assets on 13th April, 1956, and, therefore, sought recognition of that partition by filing an application under Section 25A of the Act. It was the assessee's case that under the said partition the rubber estate called Iyer Merah Estate has been given to the karta's two minor sons, Meyyappan and Muthappan, aged five and three ye...
E.F. Sreshta Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ485
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is an Income-tax Officer serving in the City, Circle VII(5), Madras-34. It appears that the petitioner was first appointed in Government service as early as 4th July, 1942, though he was appointed as Income-tax Officer, Class-II on 1st July, 1947. His qualifying period, if service after the first date of appointment is taken into consideration, is beyond 25 years, and even if the date of appointment in the Income-tax Department is taken into consideration, he has completed 24 1/2 years. At the time of the petitioner's recruitment the age of superannuation was fixed at 55 years. At the time when the petitioner entered service there was no enabling rule compelling a Government servant to retire before the age of 55. In 1965 Fundamental Rule 56 was amended by increasing the age of superannuation from 55 to 58 with the power to the appropriate authority to retire an officer for valid reasons after he attains 55 years. This rule relating to compu...
Nabisha Begum Vs. Arumuga thewar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad273
1. The plaintiff, who lost before the trial court, the first appellate court as well as before Ramakrishnan J. in second appeal, is the appellant before us in this Letters Patent appeal. The suit is one for declaration and possession with future mesne profits in respect of certain lands which the plaintiff purchased from one Velayutham Pillai under the sale deed Ex. A-1, dated 25-7-1957. All the courts have held that the plaintiff's remedy, if any, is only a suit for general partition with an equity for having the suit properties allotted to the share of vendor Velayutham Pillai inasmuch as, on the date of sale, he was not the owner of the suit properties but only had a 1/3 share in the family properties including the suit properties and that the suit for possession of the specific properties should fail. The matter turns upon the effect of an order under O. XXXII, R. 12, C. P. Code, in a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree has already been passed, regarding the status of ...
Aiyasamy Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR569(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922 :'(1) Whether, on the, facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, has been rightly levied ? (2) If the above question is answered against the assessee whether the quantum of penalty levied is justifiable ' 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in grocery such as sugar, rice, etc., both in wholesale and in retail. For the assessment year 1959-60, relevant to the previous year ending March 31, 1959, the assessee disclosed in its return a turnover of Rs. 3,48,088 and an income of Rs. 52,894 showing a gross profit of 5.1 per cent. Before the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment, the following facts came to his knowledge. The assessee's place of business was inspected by the sales tax authorities on August 26, 1958, and a pocket note book was found to be in the possession of o...
In Re: Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ381
Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot convicting the appellant. Ganesan. of the murder of his wife and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. It is alleged that he cut her with a bill-hook (M. O. 1) in his house at Thiruvannamalai. about 8.30 a. m. on 8-1-1972.2. They had been married just a few months before. But their marital relationship had not been happy. The appellant had a suspicion, which seems to us to be well founded, that she had been in sexual intimacy with her elder sister's husband. P. W. 6. and. further, she had been refusing conjugal felicity to her husband, the appellant P. W. 1, the eight-year old daughter of an other elder sister of the deceased Kamala. was staving temporarily with the appellant and the de-ceased. On the day in question the appellant asked P. W. 1. to go and Bet onions. The deceased pointed out that she might be involved in some accident and declined to send her. This alone, according...
P.M. Abdul Azeez alias Razee' Prop. Razee and Co. Vs. A.M.E. Jainab Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1973
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ421
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord's application is for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent from 1st December, 1967 to 31st May, 1968 (six months). The tenancy was determined by notice dated 4th June, 1968. The defence is that no wilful default has been committed., that as usual the respondent herein (landlord) used to collect the rent in lump sums and that he failed to turn up for the collection and that soon after the receipt of the notice dated 4th June, 1968, the (tenant) tendered the rents to the agent who promised to receive the same after getting confirmation from the owner and that the arrears were paid into Court on 10th September, 1968 and on subsequent dates. The further contention put forward is that the petition has been filed in order to get more rent. The 7th Judge of the Court of Small Causes (Rent Controlle...
Chimanlal B. Mehta Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad216
Raghavan, J. 1. These three writ Appeals arise out of three connected writ petitions Nos. 2193 of 1967, 2194 of 1967 and 2195 of 1967. W. P. 2193 of 1967 is to quash the adjudication order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 2-9-1964 confirmed by the appellate order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 18-8-1966, and further confirmed in the Revision Petition by the Union of India, by its order dated 10-3-1967, confiscating 2657 diamond pieces weighing 228.51 carats seized from the appellant's premises on 23-8-1961, on the ground of illegal importation in contravention of Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act 1947. W. P. 2194 of 1967 is filed to quash the search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in his D. Dis 5870/71 dated 23-8-1961 under Section 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code, authorising the search of the appellant's premises No.99/102 N. S. C. Bose Road, Madras-1,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »