Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-10-1957
Reported in : AIR1958Mad220; [1957]32ITR439(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - These four petitions are directed to challenge the validity of a notice issued to the respective petitioners under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This section was introduced by the Amending Act XXXIII of 1954, and one of the points raised in these petitions is as regards the constitutional validity of this amending provision.We shall state a few preliminary facts before dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Rajendra Mills Ltd., Salem, are the petitioners in W.P. No. 307 of 1955, the Meenakshi Mills Ltd., at Madurai are the petitioners in W. P. No. 308 of 1955 while W. P. No. 309 of 1955 is by the Saroja Mills Ltd., Coimbatore, and these three mills are managed by Sri Karumuttu Thiagarajan Chettiar, who has a controlling interest in each of these three companies; and Sri Thyagarajan Chettiar as an individual is the petitioner in W.P. No. 310 of 1955. For the assessment years 1940-41 to 1946-47 the several p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-1957
Reported in : AIR1959Mad317; [1959]10STC171(Mad)
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. At the date relevant to these petitions Article 286(3) of the Constitution ran:'(3) No law made by the Legislature of a State imposing, or authorising the imposition of a fax on the sale or purchase of any such goods as have been declared by Parliament by law to be essential for the life of the community shall have effect unless it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent.' By virtue of the power thus vested in Parliament was enacted the Essential Goods (Declaration and Regulation of Tax on Sale Or Purchase) Act 1952 (Act 52 of 1952). The preamble to the Act stated that it was an Act to declare in pursuance of Clause (3) of Article 286 of the Constitution, certain goods to be essential for the life of the community. The operative part of this enactment was Section 3 which ran: '3. No law made after the commencement of this Act by the legislature of a State imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-17-1957
Reported in : AIR1957Mad442; 1957CriLJ765
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision which has been filed against the conviction and sentence by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 1955 and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli Division in C. A. No. 217 of 1956.2. V.C. Subramanian Chettiar, the Revision petitioner before me, had married one Pichai Ammal the only daughter of Sankarakuttalathammal. There was a daughter by that marriage. Sometime afterwards both Pichai Animal and this daughter died, This Sankarakuttalathammal viz., the ex-mother-in-law of this Revision Petitioner had inherited properties of considerable value from her deceased husband. There was interminable civil litigations about it which came up to High Court and eventually this petitioner got a share of the properties. On account of these litigations there was bitter ill-feeling between this Revision Petitioner and the said Sankarakuttalathammal.3. P.W. 1 Chitraputran Chettiar had married Sankarakuttalat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-1957
Reported in : AIR1957Mad792; [1957]32ITR393(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner firm which consisted of two partners, Ebrahim Ali and Mohammad Esoof, was unregistered for purposes of assessment to income-tax. The firm had its business mainly in Rangoon, and it had a branch office at Madras. The partners were residents of Illayangudi in Ramanathapuram District, On 1-4-1941 Esoof left for Burma, and his partner Ebrahim followed him in November, 1941. Subsequent to March 1942, when Burma was occupied by enemy forces, communications between India and Burma were severed for the duration of the war. Ebrahim and Esoof returned to Illayangudi in 1945-48. The partnership was dissolved in 1947.2. For the assessment year 1939-40 the firm lodged a return, which showed that its income was below the assessable limit. The assessment was completed on 6-3-1940. The income from Burma was not taken into account then. The explanation given in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit was:'At this time because of enemy occupation of Burma, die income from f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1957
Reported in : (1958)1MLJ61
ORDER1. W. P. Nos. 623, 624 and 799 of 1957.---These applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution arose out of proceedings before the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957, in which the validity of the election of S. B. Adityan was challenged. It should be convenient to refer to the parties as they have been arrayed in W. P. No. 623 of 1957 preferred by the returned candidate, Adityan.2. The petitioner (S.B. Adityan) and respondents 1 to 4 (S. Kandaswami, Athimuthu, Arunachalam and Ramayya) as well as Kosalram, Ahmed Sayeed Meganathan and Muthu, nine in all, filed their nominations for the election to the State Assembly from Sattankulam Constituency of Trirunelveli district. Kosalram and Meganathan subsequently withdrew their nominations, and three others, respondent 4 (Ramayya), Muthu and Ahmed Sayeed retired from the contest. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 went to polls on 4th March, 1957, and on 6th March, 1957 and the petitioner was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-1957
Reported in : AIR1959Mad261; 1959CriLJ731; (1958)IIMLJ123
1. These are two petitions for setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge of Madras in Crl. M.P. Nos. 7 and 9 of 1957, on his file, transferring C. C. Nos. 96 and 2014 of 1957 from the file of the V Presidency Magistrate, Madras, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for being tried and disposed of by himself or by some Magistrate named by him other than the V Presidency Magistrate, These petitions first came up for hearing before Somasundaram J. but, owing to an important constitutional question raised by the petitioners, viz, the alleged absence of jurisdiction in the Sessions Judge, Madras, to entertain transfer applications in respect of cases pending before the Presidency Magistrates of Madras, Somasundaram J. directed these two cases to be posted before a Bench. That is how these petitions have come before us.2. We may now state briefly the facts which are a bit tangled and go back to a period of more than a year and are necessary, according to Mr. Vaz, the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-10-1957
Reported in : [1957]8STC253(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a revision preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in C. C. No. 3 of 1956, which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nagapattinam in C. A. No. 75 of 1956.2. The established facts are : One Rajagopala Aiyangar is the owner of a rice mill at Alivalam near Tiruvarur. On 9th January, 1956, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tanjore, went with his peon to this rice mill at about 2-30 p.m. to inspect the accounts. On going there, he found the sons of the proprietor, accused 1 and 2, studying some account books near a table inside the premises. The Special A.C.T.O. disclosed himself as such to those two persons and told them that he had come for inspection. He was allowed to inspect the account books which were there. In doing so, this officer noticed two small note books kept in the drawer. The first note book related to the period from 1st April, 1955, to 7th December, 1955, and the 0ond no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-06-1957
Reported in : AIR1959Mad396; 1959CriLJ1087
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision filed against the order made by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore in M.C. No. 5 of 1957. 2. Minor Bhoopala Subramanian by his mother Mutharnmal filed a petition for maintenance under Section 488 Cr. P. C. The respondent Subbayya Gounder was containing that he is not the father of the petitioner. In these circumstances the mother of the petitioner prayed for an order that the respondent be directed to give his blood for being sent to the Chemical Examiner of Madras along with that of the petitioner for blood grouping test to decide the paternity of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate passed an order that no objection was advanced by the other side and that hence the petition was allowed. 3. The contention of Subbayya Gounder is that on the date when this order was made his lawyer was unavoidably absent from Court and that therefore the order that there was no objection and hence the petition was allowed is incor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-1957
Reported in : (1958)1MLJ164
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The principal, if not the only point raised in these two writ petitions which seek the issue of writs of certiorari to quash two orders of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, is as to the proper construction of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) as enacted by the Amending Central Act XXXVI of 1956.2. Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe & Company are the petitioners in these two writ petitions. There was an industrial dispute between the petitioners, management, and their workmen regarding the quantum of bonus for the year ended 30th June, 1956. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunals, Madras, by the State Government by their Order, dated 17th April, 1957. The Tribunal decided this dispute by its order, dated 19th July, 1957, but the decision of the Tribunal on this dispute is not relevant to the present proceedings but the petition is concerned with certain events which transpired during the pendency of this industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-10-1957
Reported in : AIR1957Mad719; [1957]32ITR369(Mad)
1. The petitioner is the son of the late S. K. Mohideen, hereinafter referred to as the assessee. The assessee was a partner of Dinshaw and Company and of the firm Palaniappa Chettiar (Jupiter Pictures) among other concerns. The assessment of Mohideen for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 was completed on 20th February, 1950. By that date the assessment of the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 and that of Dinshaw and Company, for the years 1946-47 and 1948 had not been completed. Mohideen's assessment was however completed, accepting provisionally his estimates of his share of the losses of those two partnership concerns. The assessec's share of the losses of Dinshaw and Company was shown as Rs. 20,000 for 1946-47 and as Rs. 10,000 for 1947-4.8, and his share of the losses in the firm of Palaniappa Chettiar for 1947-48 was shown as Rs. 12,436.2. The assessment of Dinshaw and Company for both the years was completed on 31st October, 1950. As against the Rs. 20,000 provision...
Tag this Judgment!