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.
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. K.S. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1974
Reported in: [1976]104ITR368(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This appeal arises from Balakrisknan v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax : [1972]86ITR263(Mad) . The respondent applied for compensationof agricultural income-tax in June, 1966. The question was whether anextent of 29 acres and 27 cents which was in excess of the ceiling area,should be taken into account for purposes of composition. Notwithstandingthe fact that the notification under Section 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu LandReforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, was made on May 23.1966, the assessing authority took the view that this extent should betaken into account for the purpose of composition in respect of the assessment year 1967-68 and in support of this view, he relied on the proviso to Section 10 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. This viewprevailed with the Commissioner. But the composition order passed onthat view was quashed by Ramaprasada Rao J., he being of opinion thatbecause of Section 7 of the Land Reforms Act, the stated ...
The State of Madras and anr. Vs. R. Ranganatham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad292
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The State of Madras represented by the Collector of Thanjavur, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, is the appellant. The plaintiff respondent brought an action for declaration that he was entitled to the sum of Rupees 23,500.48, which was held in deposit in O.S. No. 90 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, and also for the return of the sum of Rs. 1,420 together with interest which, according to the plaintiff, was payable and refundable to him and to which the defendants, namely, the State of Madras, which is the 1st defendant, and the District Forest Officer, Thanjavur, who was the 2nd defendant, had no right, title or interest. The circumstances under which the suit was filed may be stated thus.2. Under Ex. B-l dated 16-7-1963 a Forest notification was issued by the District Forest Officer, Thanjavur, wherein the lease of the right to cut and remove the Casuarina t...
M. Palaniswami Vs. Madukkarai Cement Works Employees' Co-operative Sto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ78Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as assistant accountant on probation by the first respondent herein. The probation of the petitioner was periodically extended from time to time for unsatisfactory work and the last of the extension was upto 30th September, 1968. On the ground that the work of the petitioner as assistant accountant was not satisfactory, he was tried on an alternative job as a clerk also. The first respondent on 27th September, 1968, informed the petitioner that he had not cared to put in efforts and prove his suitability for the post and that, however, in view of the long probationary period the petitioner had put in, the first respondent had sympathetically considered and offered the petitioner the post of a clerk instead of terminating his services. This communication asked the petitioner to state whether he was willing to accept the post of clerk on the same salary and send his reply by 30th September, 1968, as otherwise the first respondent would have ...
M. Kesava Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. D.C. Rajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ56
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 146 of 1963 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Salem, is the appellant in A.S. No. 846 of 1967. Defendants 3 and 4 in the said suit are the appellants in A.S. No. 13 of 1968. The first plain tiff is the brother-in-law of the first defendant (sister's husband) and the second plaintiff is the concubine of the first defendant's father. The second defendant is the first defendant's brother. The third and the fourth defendants are the alienees of some of the suit items of properties and the rest of the defendants are either alienees from the first defendant of some other items of suit properties or the tenants in occupation of one or the other items of the suit properties. The father of defendants 1 and 2 is said to be a leader of Vanniakula Kshatriya community in the village and is said to have earned a reputation of his own. He had considerable properties and under Exhibit B-1, dated 4th September, 1929 he effected a...
Mohammed KarimuddIn (Died) and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ396
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this Writ Petition the petitioners seek to quash the order of the 1st respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 226 (Housing), Labour Department, dated 3rd June, 1969 and the consequent notification of withdrawal from acquisition of certain lands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, which notification was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 11th June, 1969. The petitioners are the owners of an extent of 15.94 acres of land in Survey No. 1/1 - A in Ammbakkam, which is comprised in the Madras extended Area Taluk. The lands are situate on the Madras-Bangalore Trunk Road and near a developed colony known as Shenoynagar and is in the neighbourhood of the well-known colony of Anna Nagar. The 1st petitioner died during the pendency of the Writ Petition and his surviving legal representatives are said to be the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The original registered owner of the property was late Khader Mohideen Sahib. On 10th August, 1960...
The State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. P. Kanagamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad303
ORDERIsmail, J.1. These Writ Petitions raise a common question. Having regard to the nature of the question raised, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail and it is enough, if the broad facts are stated for, the purpose of appreciating the question raised. Manali village in Chingleput Taluk, Chingleput District, was an inam village which became an estate under the Tamil Nadu Estates Land Act, 1908 by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1936). For the purposes of the Madras Refineries Ltd., a major portion of the lands in the said village was notified to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Aquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in all these cases in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 3-2-1965. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 9-6-1965. Under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act, poss...
K. Vasudeva Ayyangar Vs. Sri Ranganatha Co-operative Stores Ltd. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ158
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The question involved in this petition is the construction of the first proviso to Section 71(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, (Tamil Nadu Act LIII of 1961). Section 71(1) provides for surcharging any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society when it appears that he has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has made any payment contrary to the Act or the Rules or the bye-laws. The sub-section says that the Registrar himself, or any person specially authorised in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor or contributory may inquire into the conduct of such person or officer or servant and make an order requir...
Dasanaickenpatti Panchayat Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad2
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. There was a bifurcation of the appellant and the third respondent panchayats and the allotment of the jurisdiction of each of the panchayats was made with reference to the survey numbers. That was sometime in October 1964. On July 30, 1966 there was a proposal for exchange of certain survey numbers between the two panchayats, but that proposal, in the first instance, was not disposed of by the Director of Rural Development, who was the authority concerned. On the other hand, the matter was straightway taken to the Government, and its order dated October 7, 1969, addressed to the Director of Rural Development, was that the proposal for the transfer was dropped. But this order was modified by the Government by another order dated November 5, 1969, in which it said that it had no objection to the transfer of S. Nos. 26 to 32 of Nilavarapatti revenue village from the jurisdiction of the existing Dasanaickenpatti Panchayat to the Nilavarapatti Panchayat, and also to th...
Rajendrakumar Bhandari Vs. Poosammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad379; (1975)2MLJ59
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O. S. No. 4305 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant. The first defendant is a lessee of a piece and parcel of land measuring 780 sq. ft. in R. S. No. 35/1 and 32 in Nungambakkam, Machay's gardens. Thousand Lights, Madras, Admittedly defendants 2 to 5 are the owners of this property. Exs. A.3 to A.5 evidence such a lease of the land in favour of the first defendant. It appears that the first defendant put up a structure on the land so leased out to her by defendants 2 to 5 and gained an entitlement under the provisions of the Cily Tenants Protection Act to purchase the land over which the superstructure was put up by her as and when she was sought to be evicted by the owners. It is common ground that defendants 2 to 5 filed an ejectment suit No. 35 of 1960 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the first defendant. The first defendant thereafter, pursuant to her statutory rig...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anamallais Bus Transports (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR445(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred in this tax case : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sums of Rs. 1,63,503 and Rs. 1,79,000 being the amounts provided for payment of bonus for the assessment years1962-63 and 1963-64 represented liability of the assessee-company for the relevant years and were allowable as deductions in the computation of the profits and gains of the assessee's business for purposes of assessment for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 '2. The assessee is a private limited company operating a bus transport. It follows the mercantile system. For the assessment years 1962-63 and1963-64, the assessee made provision for payment of bonus to its employees to the extent of Rs. 1,63,503 and Rs. 1,79,000, respectively. The amounts were shown under ' liabilities for expenses ' under the head, 'contingency account ' and the assessee deducted these amounts from the income returned fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »