Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ363
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The Union of India, represented by the Postmaster-General, Mount Road, Madras, is the appellant and the respondent is Amjad Miyan of Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. The latter instituted a suit, O.S. No. 1749 of 1962 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the Union of India to recover a sum of Rs. 5,555 representing the loss of an insured article. His case is that from Rampur he came to Trichy after a halt at Madras some time in August, 1960, that he left Rampur taking a sum of Rs. 5,000 (fifty hundred rupee currency notes) from one Dhulai Miyan of Rampur for purchasing lungies for the latter at Trichy, that after arriving at Trichy he abandoned that idea and therefore sent back the sum of Rs. 5,000 (the same identical 50 hundred rupee currency notes) to Dhulai Miyan at Rampur, The further case of the plaintiff is that he is an illiterate man does not know to read and write English and therefore, he sought the assistance of one Nawab Jan to fill in the requisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]90ITR116(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In these two writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is challenged. The petitioners are different but identical contentions have been raised. In the first case for the assessment year 1968-69 the petitioner filed on April 18, 1969, a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 51,350. The tax payable thereon under Section 140A(1) was Rs. 15,506. Since the petitioner did not pay the tax within thirty days of furnishing the return as required under Section 140A(1), a notice under Section 140A(3) was issued to him to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner filed a written reply on October 28, 1969, stating that his funds were locked up in the business and that, therefore, the tax could not be paid in accordance with that section. But the Income-tax Officer rejected his explanation on the ground that the petitioner was showing large cash balance in his wealth-tax ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ43
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. In these five cases a common question arises for consideration. The petitioners, who are employed in the office of the Accountant-General, Madras, pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable order directing the Accountant-General, Madras, the first respondent, to fix their seniority on a certain basis. The second respondent in all these cases is the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, New Delhi. Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P. No. 2213 of 1970, who were juniors to the petitioner therein, have since been promoted over the head of the petitioner and assigned seniority above him. Hence, they have been impleaded. But those respondents are not parties in the other writ petitions.2. All the petitioners entered service in the Accountant-General's Office, as upper division clerks at different times. The promotion from the post of upper division clerk is to what is called Subordinate Accounts Service. The upper division clerk should pass an examinatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR474(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two writ petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition prohibiting the respondent. Income-tax Officer, from continuing the proceedings in pursuance of his notice dated March 7, 1967, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner was carrying on business of purchase and sale of cinder. He was also a labour sub-contractor to the Madras Electricity System and others. For the assessment year 1960-61 he submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 35,763. An assessment order was made on September 30, 1961, after readjusting some debits and ultimately determining the total loss of Rs. 5,696. For the assessment year 1961-62, the total income was determined at Rs. 54,918 under assessment order dated October 30, 1963, made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee had shown in his accounts a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]97ITR476(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - These are two writ petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition prohibiting the respondent, Income-tax Officer, from continuing the proceedings in pursuance of his notice dated March 7, 1967, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in respect of assessment yeas 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner was carrying on business of purchase and sale of cinder. He was also a labour sub-contractor to the Madras Electricity System and others. For the assessment year 1960-61 he submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 35,763. An assessment order was made on September 30, 1961, after readjusting some debits and ultimately determining the total loss of Rs. 5,696. For the assessment year 1961-62, the total income was determined at Rs. 54,918 under assessment order dated October 30, 1963, made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee had shown in his accounts a sum o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)1MLJ282
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J., in W.P. No. 1574 of 1970(P). The appellant is Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., Mudaliarpet, Commune, Pondicherry, hereinafter called the Mills. It is a public limited company which took over the quondam Savana Mills in the year 1956. For the purpose of its business the Mills obtains most of its raw materials and other stores from outside the Pondicherry State. It purchases cotton from various States in the country and also imports the same from abroad. In addition it also purchases various materials like colour chemicals, sizing and packing materials, kerosene oil lubricants, spare parts, stationery, building materials and fuel etc. from places outside the Pondicherry State. Mudaliarpet Commune, in which the Mills are situate is not served by Railway and even the road transport could only be through the town of Pondicharry. The goods purchased by the Mills from outside Pondicherry State have, 't...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1975Mad19
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1976]102ITR138(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These are four appeals against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao J. on the writ petitions filed before him. 2. The said judgment is reported in M. CT. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust v. 4th Income-tax Officer, City Circle VI, Madras : [1972]86ITR282(Mad) . Though the four appeals relate to different trusts, it is enough for our present purpose to set out the facts in W.A. No. 167 of 1972 as typical of all of them. 3. By an indenture dated June 4, 1951, Lady Muthiah Chettiar and her two sons executed a trust settlement transferring and delivering to the trustees a sum of Rs. 10,000 for certain charitable objects specified in the deed. The settlors intended to and did make further contributions of a substantial nature towards the objects of the trust. This trust was enjoying the exemption from levy of income-tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 4922. The assessment year with which we are now concerned in this appeal is 1964-6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1978]112ITR839(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - This reference has been made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The assessee is a firm carrying on business as contractors consisting of three partners, Sachidanandam, Nataraja Gounder and Mosa Gounder. On December 12, 1968, the Income-tax Officer made an assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, in the case of Sachidanandam under section 144 of the Act. In the said order the Income-tax Officer observed as follows :'On the basis of materials available, I estimate the assessees share income from the firm of Messrs. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation at Rs. 7,500.'The same Income-tax Officer had served a notice under section 139(2) on 18th July, 1968, on the assessee-firm. It did not file a return of income in pursuance of the said notice and the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment on January 4, 1969, estimating the income at Rs. 25,000 and showing the status as 'unregistered firm'. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]149ITR341(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These are two writ petitions, which were originally posted along with W. Ps Nos. 828 and 2120 of 1977 and 3307 of 1978. As the points raised in these writ petitions required certain other contentions to be considered, these petitions on January 23, 1979. In both these write petitions the respective write petitioners have prayed for issue of a write of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent, that is the Assistant Director of Inspection from taking and proceedings under s. 131 of the I.T. Act or any other provision for the purpose of summoning the petitioners and taking evidence or recording statements in respect of any proceedings relating to the second respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Federation. The learned counsel, Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, who appeared for these two write petitioners, wanted the write of prohibition to be issued in a modified form and not in the form in which it is set out in the petitions, as it was realised that a ba...
Tag this Judgment!