Chennai Court July 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.
indo-ceylon Dental and Surgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR536(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. It carries on business in the purchase and sale of dental goods. On October 10, 1957, due to restriction in imports, the directors decided to start a dental industry and the managing agents were authorised to negotiate with the foreign manufacturers for the purchase of machinery and raw materials for the manufacture of plastic tooth, and to utilise the general reserve available with the company for the said purpose. It also decided to apply to the Director of Industries, Madras, for permission to import the requisite machinery and also for the allotment of a factory unit in the Government Industrial Estate.2. The paid up capital of the company was Rs. 52,150 as on March 31, 1960. The accumulated profits and reserve including amounts capitalised from the earlier reserve amounted to Rs. 51,759 as on March 31, 1960. In the year ending on March 31, I960, it made a profit of Rs. 30...
T.M. Rangachari and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR50(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As each of the above three references has been made at the instance of a shareholder of one Guntur Power and Light Ltd. and the questions involved therein are identically the same, they are dealt with together.2. The assessee in all these cases is a shareholder in a public limited company called the Guntur Power and Light Ltd. (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as 'the company'), which carried on the business of generation and distribution of electric energy. Under the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the company, which owned the electrical undertaking, had to set apart, (1) a reserve called the 'Tariffs and Dividends Control Reserve'; and (2) a reserve called the 'Reserve for grant of Rebate to Consumers', as provided in Paragraph II of the Sixth Schedule to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, as also a reserve called the 'Contingencies Reserve' as provided in Paragraph III of the same schedule. As on March 31, 1956, the following amounts stood ...
Coimbatore Salem Transports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: [1974]97ITR281(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. For the assessment year 1963-64, the accounting period being the year ended December 31, 1962, the assessee-company was assessed by the Income-tax Officer under the Income-tax Act on a total income of Rs. 3,28,671 by an order dated December 30, 1963. For the purpose of assessment under the Super Profits Tax Act, for the same assessment year 1963--64, the chargeable profits were also taken at the same figure of Rs. 3,28,671. Thus, the super profits tax assessment followed the income-tax assessment.2. In the income-tax assessment the assessee claimed deduction to the extent of Rs. 44,237 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted relief only to the extent of Rs. 6,984. The same relief was also granted in the super profits tax assessment.3. The assessments under the Income-tax Act as well as under the Super Profits Tax Act came ultimately before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissi...
In Re: Karunakaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ798
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These two-appeals are filed by the tw0 appellants (Karunakaran, the first accused, and Jabamani Nadar alias Kanyakumari Comrade alias Ramu, the second accused) against their conviction for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of death awarded against them.2. At one stage, we thought that this case falls within a narrow compass, but the more we delved deeper and deeper, the case presented some complex difficulties and the entire complexity arose from the fabrication resorted to in an unabashed manner by the investigating machinery as will be dealt with fairly elaborately in the later portion of our judgment. The prosecution would have it that the two appellants and one Thami-zharasan alias Ramaswami are the main participants in this dastardly crime of killing Viswanatham Pillai, village munsif of Orathur, while he was asleep on M. O. 1 in front of his cattle shed.3. It is alleged, and there is substantial amount ...
V. Muthuswamy Vs. Senior Deputy Accountant General, (Admn.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ187
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner states that he was working as a Section Officer in the office of the Accountant-General, II, Madras, and his services were lent to the Madras State Housing Board under Foreign Service Rules, 1955, and that he was working in the Madras State Housing Board from 26th October, 1965 to 25th October, 1966. With reference to the petitioner availing of leave concession and obtaining a sum of Rs. 578.40 on that account, when he was working in the State Housing Board, the respondent herein issued a notice on 17th October, 1969 proposing to conduct an enquiry in respect of an alleged irregularity arising out of the receipt of the said money. The petitioner contends that the respondent had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from proceeding with, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the said memorandum dated 17th October, 1969.2. The learned Counsel for the pe...
Superintendent Engineer, Erode Electricity System Vs. Executive Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ256
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The question that arises in all these petitions is whether the Madras State Electricity Board, a statutory body, transacting the business of the supply of electricity to consumers in many municipalities and panchayats of the State is liable to pay profession tax. The Courts below have held that it is liable. Section 93 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, enables the Municipal Council to determine by a resolution the payment of profession tax by every company and person transacting business within its limits for more than 60 days in any half year. Section 95 of the Act provides for the service of notice on such company or person and this notice should give them 15 days time for payment. Rule 30 in Schedule IV states that if the amount that is demanded by notice is not paid within the time prescribed, the executive authority may recover the amount by distraint. If such distraint is not practicable, the authority may resort to a prosecution. R...
T. Thiravia Nadar Vs. S. Thiravia Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad192; (1975)1MLJ116
Maharajan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises under the following circumstances. The respondent obtained a decree against the apaellant in O S. No. 118 of 1970 on the file of the Ambasamudram District Munsif's Court on foot of a promissory note. In execution the decree-holder sought to brine the judgment-debtor's house to sale. The judgment-debtor filed E. A. 952 of 1971 Praying for the dismissal of the execution petition. The main basis upon which he asked for dismissal is that under proviso (c) to Section 60(1), Civil P. C. the house belongs to an agriculturist and is occupied by him and, therefore, it is not liable to attachment or sale. The Judgment-debtor's contention was that he was an agriculturist within the meaning of Section 60(1)(c). Civil P. C. The decree-holder filed a counter in which he contended that, by virtue of the findings in O. S. No. 118 of 1970 and A. S. 35 of 1971, the judgment-debtor was barred by res judicata from contending that he is entitled...
Karuppiah Mooppanar Vs. Muthukaruppan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad221
Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge of Tirunelveli setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, in O. S. No. 65 of T968, and remanding the suit for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The respondent, Muthukaruppan Servai, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court, instituted the suit against appellant -- defendant, Karuppiah Mooppanar, for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the suit property and for recovery of future mesneprofits. The plaintiffs case was that the property originally belonged to Madasami Mooppanar, his father, and that upon the death of Madasami Mooppanar, his four sons Pechimuthu Mooppanar, Rukka Mooppanar, Velliappa Mooppanar and himself became entitled to the suit property and that during the plaintiff's absence away at Bickramasingapuram, the defendant had unauthorisedly put up a thatched house on the suit property. It was in these circumstances, says the plaintiff, that ...
R. Lingaraj and ors. Vs. Parvathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad285
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. R. Lingaraj, who has been held to be a lunatic under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and respondents 1 to 4 in O. P. No. 169 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of Coimbatore (West) are the appellants. The proceedings between the parties have a long and chequered history and for a full appreciation of the controversy it is necessary to refer to the course of the litigation from its inception. Parvathi alias Kundhiammal, the respondent herein, is the wife of Lingaraj. She came forward with a petition under Sections 62 and 67 of the Act for directing an inquisition for the purpose of ascertaining whether her husband, Lingaraj, is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and for consequential orders and directions of Court, if the Court found on inquisition that Lingaraj is of unsound mind. Though she had given birth to three sons and a daughter through Lingaraj, the respondent's case was tha...
Nachimuthu Goundar and anr. Vs. Amaravathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ333
S. Maharajan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises under the following circumstances:2. The second appellant purchased, under the hammer of Court, on 6th March, 1967 a particular property at a sale in execution of a decree obtained by the first appellant against one Karuppakkal in O. S. No. 1383 of 1964 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. Sometime after the date of the decree, Karuppakkal died and the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 155 of 1966 praying that eight persons including Amaravathi, the respondent herein be impleaded as the legal representatives of Karuppakkal as respondents 2 to 9 in E. P. No. 155 of 1966, and that three lots of properties described in the E. P. be attached and brought to sale. Though all the three lots were attached, lot No. 2 alone was ultimately brought to sale. Two persons offered bids and the second appellant offered the highest bid of Rs. 11,000 and his bid was accepted and the auction knocked down in his favour. On th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »