Chennai Court April 1976 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.
Krishnaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1013
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. These two petitions are connected and raise the interesting question whether a Sessions Judge, acting as a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952, can exercise the power conferred on a Magistrate under Section 167 of the Crl. P.C., to authorise detention of an accused in the custody of the police. The petitions have come to be filed under the following circumstances.2. The first petitioner who is the son of the second petitioner was the Gazetted Personal Assistant to the former Minister for Health, State of Tamil Nadu. He as well as the second petitioner were arrested by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Unit of the Tamil Nadu Police on April, 2, 1976 for alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were produced before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras who is the Special Judge to try offences under the said Act within the city of Madras, on the next day, i.e. April 3, 1976. The petitioners unsuccessfully moved the Special Judge...
Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR822(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified by the Income-tax Officer under Section 154 in respect of the assessments relating to 1959-60 and 1960-61 ?' (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order under Section 154 dated February 25, 1965, relating to the assessment for 1959-60 was not rendered illegal on the ground that it was barred by the period of limitation ?' 2. These questions relate to two assessment years, viz., assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. The assessee is a public company. The assessment for 1959-60 was made on May 27, 1960, determining the total income at Rs. 15,03,585. This inc...
Caravan Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ199Mad
Mohan, J.1. These two writ petitions may conveniently be dealt with together. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in writ Petition No. 3610 of 1974. The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business of goods carriers having its regional office at Madras and branch offices all over India. On 4th January, 1973, it issued orders of transfer, to the following clerks:1. K.G. Gopinath; 2. V. Gurumurthi; 3. S.S.N. Md. Hussain; 4. P. Vasu; 5. M.S. Sethumadhavan; and 6. A.R. Md. Hussain.They were transferred to several places, like Nagpur, Bangalore, Delhi, Bombay and Jabalpur. The workmen against whom orders of transfer were passed, represented to the management to reconsider the order. But, according to the management, these transfers were made for administrative convenience, and they were done with reference to the exigencies as they then existed Dispute arose concerning this. There were conciliation proceedings, and the Conciliation Officer sent a failure repo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gemini Productions
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR847(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench ' A ', has stated a case to this court and referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act were not applicable for the reassessments for, 1957-58 and 1958-59? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that under the terms of the agreement Between the applicant and Messrs. Gemini Pictures Circuit Private ' Ltd., the commission provided for had become diverted by an overriding title in favour of the distributors ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therewas any payment of commission by the producers to the distributors towarrant the application of Section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax ...
Nataraja Iyer Vs. Nacharammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad221; (1977)1MLJ47
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif. Mayuram, setting aside the ex part decree passed in O. S. 201 of 1971 on a petition filed by the defendant and numbered as I. A 1041 of 1973. The decree was passed on 1-6-1971. The petition to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on 30-12-1972 contending that the petitioner was not served with summons and that she came to know about the ex parte decree only on 14-12-1972. This petition was resisted by the plaintiff who contended inter alia that the defendant was served with summons by post, that possession of the building in pursuance of the ex parte decree was also taken in execution proceedings, and that, therefore, the defendant should have been aware of the posing of the ex parte decree against her. The defendant contended that no possession was delivered and that only records have been created to make it appear that possession had been delivered. Her contention was that she had...
Sri Srinivas Transports Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ227
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of dismissal in W.P. No. 947 of 1974 by Ismail, J. In the petition, the appellant prayed for the issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records in Memo. R. No. 19434 of 1974 on the file of the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai and quashing the order dated 26th March, 1974.2. The fitness certificate of the appellant's vehicle MDM 4467 expired on 27th December, 1973. The appellant sent a stoppage report to the Regional Transport Officer saying that they had stopped running the vehicle. A few days prior to that i.e., on 24th December, 1973, G.O. Ms. No. 3260 was issued, which came into force on 1st January, 1974. According to the appellant, no fitness certificate was obtained and the vehicle was garaged during the months of January, February-and March, 1974. On 25th March, 1974, the appellant wrote to the Regional Transport Officer stating that they desired to resume plying the vehicle from 1st April, 1974 and requesting ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR115(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference arises out of the proceedings under Section 23 A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee is a holding company which has several subsidiaries. It is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The relevant previous year ended on 30th June, 1959. When the Income-tax Officer considered the application of Section 23A to this company, he had already made an assessment on it for the relevant year on a total income of Rs. 25,79,508. After deducting the taxes and outgoings, there was a distributable surplus, out of the assessable income, of Rs. 18,12,622. On the basis that the assessee is a company whose business consisted wholly or mainly in the holding of investments, the assessee should have distributed 90% of the aforesaid distributable surplus, which came to Rs. 16,31,360. The assessee had, however, declared only a sum of Rs. 7,80,000 as dividend. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, considered tha...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR547(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a common reference in respect of four assessees of whom three are chambers of commerce and the fourth is the Madras Stock Exchange. Though the question that arose for determination of the Tribunal related to the construction of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, still the facts in respect of each case are somewhat different. We would first state the facts with reference to the Andhra Chamber of Commerce and consider the legal issue involved in the light of those facts. We shall thereafter take up the case of each of the other assessees to find out whether the conclusion arrived at in the case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce is applicable to them. 2. Andhra Chamber of Commerce is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and was permitted under Section 26 of that Act to omit the word 'limited' from its name by an order of the appropriate Government. The principal objects of the assessee were: (a) To promote and protect trade, commerce an...
A.M.E.P. Mohammed Ismail and ors. Vs. S.A.S. Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ76
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1.The petitioners are the Court-auction-purchasers in a money decree sale while the respondent is a decree-holder over a mortgage by deposit of title deeds effected by the common judgment-debtor. It is convenient to trace out the relevant dates during which the respondent secured a right over the property of the common judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor mortgaged by deposit of title deeds his property which would be hereinafter referred to as the property. This deposit was made on 15th February, 1971. It is conceded that the deposit of such deeds was not registered though it could have been done in law. The result was the bargain between the judgment-debtor and the respondent was only known as between themselves. The respondent not having had satisfaction towards the amount advanced by him filed O.S.No. 262 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai and obtained a final decree finally on the 9th of August, 1974. He filed E.P.No. 338 of 1973 pursu...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad10
Balasubramanyam, J.1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Madras, under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. pursuant to a mandamus issued by this court in W. P. No. 2484 of 1971, reported in Manjunatha v. Board of Revenue, : AIR1973Mad343 ,. The reference concerns an instrument bearing the date 29-4-1970, under which the respondent, Manjunatha Rai purported to release in favour of his wife a piece of land which stood in his name.2. The statement of the case shows that before stamping the instrument the respondent took it to the Collector of Madras and sought his opinion as to the proper stamp duty payable thereon. The Collector went into the matter and, by his order dated 21-4-1970, considered the document to be a release deed, and determined the stamp duty payable at Rs. 22-50. On getting the Collector's opinion, the respondent stamped the instrument as a release deed with Rs. 22-50, and presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Madras-1....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »