Chennai Court June 1974 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.
P. Subbiah Vs. A. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad63
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S, No. 277 of 1968. on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,400/- on the fact of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 23-11-1964 under Ex. A-1. In the plaint, the bar as to limitation is got over by reference to Ex. A-2, which is a counter-affidavit filed by the defendant in the insolvency proceedings in I. P No. 6 of 1967, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli. The plaintiff himself was the petitioning creditor in the above insolvency petition. In answer to the petition to adjudicate the defendant as insolvent, the defendant stated, in so far as the suit promissory note was concerned, no amount was paid to the plaintiff for principal or interest and added that he paid a sum of Rs. 600/- in March, 1965, towards the promissory note and another sum of Rs. 1,500/- in March, 1966. towards the interest on the pro...
Hindusthan General Insurance Society Vs. S. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad162; (1975)1MLJ28
Kailasam, J. 1. The Hindusthan General Insurance Society Ltd., by its General Secretary, the defendant in a suit for recovering of a sum of Rupees 3715-20. on the basis of an insurance policy taken by him, is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The plaintiff has insured his lorry MDS -4779 with the defendant. Theperiod of insurance was from 11-8-1962 to 10-8-1963. On 25-1-1963, the lorry met with an accident, as a result of which the claim was made by the plaintiff. 3. The only point that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the Insurance Company can repudiate its liability under the Policy on the around that there was a material misrepresentation in his proposal for the issue of the policy. In the proposal made by the plaintiff, the particulars of the vehicle to be insured is given as follows : Registered number of the vehicleMDS 4779 Make of vehicleTata Mercedes BenzTYPE of bodyOpenTreasury Horse power or C. C. 30.2Year of manufacture 1961Proposer's estimate of...
Rm. Ar. Adaikkappa Chettiar Vs. the Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad223
Maharajan, J.1. The tenth defend-ant appeals. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the Kumba-konam City Union Bank Ltd., for recovery of Rs. 26,137.10 with a charge on the properties described in the plaint schedule. Defendants 1 to 3 for themselves and on behalf of their minor sons, defendants 4 to 9 executed Ex. A-1, a registered security bond on 12-7-1963 in favour of the plaintiff. The security was furnished to cover loans to be advanced by the Bank subsequent to the date of the bond. Pursuant to the bond, defendants 1 and 2 are alleged to have borrowed Rs. 21,000/- from the plaintiff on 28-9-1964 by executing a promissory note on that date. It was to recover this loan with interest and a charge on the property that the plaintiff instituted the suit, impleading the tenth defendant as a subsequent mortgagee.2. The tenth defendant, who is a Nattukottai Chettiar money lender (Adaikappa Chettiar) filed an answer in which he claimed that on 7-5-1963 itself defendant...
Mottaiyan Alias Muruga Koundar and ors. Vs. Anjalai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ245
S. Mohan, J.1. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the defendants have come up by way of Second Appeal to this Court.2. The plaint allegations, inter alia, are that the first defendant and the deceased Annasami Gounder are the sons of one Alaga Goundar who died about twenty years before suit. Annasami died on 20th January, 1966. The first plaintiff is the second wife and the second plaintiff is the minor daughter of Annasami and the first plaintiff. The second defendant is the daughter of Annasami through his wife Chinnammal, who pre-deceased him. The third defendant is Marimuthammal, the widow of Alaga Goundar. Annasami executed the settlement deed Exhibit A-1, dated 4th April, 1964 in respect of 55 1/2 cents in item 1 and 45 1/4 cents in item 2 in Part II of the plaint schedule in favour of the first plaintiff in consideration of a pre-nuptial agreement. The settlement deed was acted upon and the first plaintiff by marrying Annasami fulfilled her obligations. T...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR360(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As these two cases arise out of the same order of the Tribunal they are dealt with together.2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of yarn. In the accounts of the assessee for the assessment year 1948-49, the previous year being the year ending on December 31, 1947, there were the following credits in the name of one N. T. Thenappa Chettiar, a resident of the former native State of Pudukottah.Rs.17- 7-19472,00,00024-10-19471,00,0003. In the course of the assessment proceedings the particulars about N. T. Thenappa Chettiar were called for and they have been duly furnished. The assessee had filed a return showing a business loss of Rs. 1,54,150. The assessment was completed on March 21, 1953, determining the net loss at Rs. 1,50,836.4. Subsequent to the completion of the assessment the Income-tax Officer made some enquiries as to the status of Thenappa Chettiar. The enquiries revealed that Thenappa Chettiar was a man o...
United Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: [1974]96ITR734(Mad)
1. For the assessment year 1962-63 corresponding to the previous year ended March 31, 1962, the assessee which is a public limited company claimed deduction of the following reserves as on March 31, 1972, fordetermining the capital base for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act,1963 : Rs.1.Taxation12,15,0002.Proposed dividends3,18,0263.Amount in credit of the depreciation reserve account in excess of the amount allowed for tax purposes1,31,0002. The Super Profits Tax Officer by his order dated January 31, 1964, refused to allow the claim as in his view the provision for taxation and proposed dividends were not reserves within the meaning of the Act and the question of allowing the excess depreciation did not arise as it was transferred to the general reserve only after 31st March, 1963. 3. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that all the above amounts were allowable as the conditions laid down in the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, were satisfied...
A.S.S.S.S. Chandrasekaran and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1974
Reported in: [1974]96ITR711(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to us reads as follows :' Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that no appeal lies from the order of the Income-tax Officer rejecting the assessee's application for registration as time barred '2. The assessee is a partnership concern. For the assessment year 1964-65, it closed its accounts on February 12, 1964. An application for registration of the firm was filed on June 5, 1964. By an order dated March 15, 1965, the Income-tax Officer rejected this application as time-barred as no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application had been offered. The assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal was incompetent. This was on the basis that, though the order of the Income-tax Officer was purported to have been passed under Section 185, it was really an order under the proviso to Section 184(4...
Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR341(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1963-64 corresponding to the accounting year ending March 31, 1963, it claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 56,275 under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During the year under consideration, a new company was formed under the name and style of Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products Ltd., which is a fully owned subsidiary company of the assessee. It may be mentioned that thus subsidiary company was formed in the place of the retreading division of the assessee. This new company took over all the employees belonging to the tyresoles division of the assessee. At the time of the formation of the new company gratuity payable to the transferred employees was calculated on the basis of the rules of the company and the amount thus ascertained was a sum of Rs. 56,275. This amount was transferred to the subsidiary company from the pension and gratuity reserve of the assessee. The assessee claimed that the amount was...
N. Swaminathan Vs. the District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ438
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These are appeals from a combined order of Palaniswami, J. The appelant who is common to both the appeals, owned about 110.90 acres of land in Danishpet Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. The extent was requisitioned and taken possession of by the State Government on 18th March, 1960, under the provisions of Act XLII of 1956. The relevant notification for taking over the land was on 15th October, 1959. The land had since been developed as a seed farm. While the Government was in possession admittedly as a lessee, the Ceiling Act came into force with effect from 6th April, 1960. There were proceedings under this Act based on returns filled by the appellant. On 25th April, 1963, an e tent of 70 acres 18 cents was declared to be surplus. The proceedings continued and reached the stage of a notification dated 5th November, 1967, Under Section 18 (1). Eventually, a draft compensation order was sent to the appellant on 24th November, 1967. It was mentioned that the ...
T. Balakrishna Mehta Vs. M.S. Mahadeva Iyer and the Assistant Custodia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ247
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree of Ganesan, J., dismissing his suit for a declaration of his title to the plaint-schedule property and for possession. There is a long history behind the dispute, but on the view we take, it is not necessary to cover the entire field. The suit property is of an extent of 4131 sq. ft. included in a larger extent of 9 grounds 665 sq. ft. in S. No. 145, Mount Road, Madras- Originally, it belonged to the Nawab of Arcot and from him it devolved on Nawab Muna-war Khan, who left two children, Nawah Ghulam Mohideen Khan, who died recently, and Azeem Unnissa Begum. In June, 1912 one Mohammad Abdul Khader Saheb purchased the property from Nawab Munawar Khan. The purchaser's son, in his turn, conveyed the property by way of sale to one Amathur Kareem Hamithunnissa Begum Saheba for a certain consideration. It is evident from this sale-deed that the property was purchased by the vendor from the Prince of Arcot, that the vendor was indebted t...