Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad392
(1) This appeal instituted by M. A. and Sons (appellants) from the order and decree of the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing O. P. No. 478 of 1961, involves certain questions of interest with regard to a reference to arbitration, as provided for by the by-laws of the Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange (Pte.) Ltd (first respondent). The essential facts and dates are as follows:(2) There were certain contracts, which were of the character of forward contracts, as between the appellants and the second respondent firm (Kilachand and Devchand and Co. Pte. Ltd.) for supplies of groundnut oil on differing dates. It is not in dispute that, owing to the alleged bursting of the boiler apparatus, the appellants were unable to deliver, and reported the inability; in brief, the contracts were broken. On the principle of S. 60 of the Indian Sales of Goods Act, the second respondent choose to treat the contract as subsisting, and waited till the date of delivery. As the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-29-1964
Reported in : AIR1967Mad77; 1967CriLJ205
Natesan, J. (1) This revision case arising out of a proceeding before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, under S. 488(1), Cri P.C. comes before us, as the matter has been referred to a Bench in few of the conflict of case law and marked divergence of opinion between various High Courts and even in decisions of the same High Court on the question whether the word 'child' in S. 488(1), Cri P.C. in the context means a person of tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority, that is, person under nonage or expresses only the relationship of a person as the immediate issue of a parent, without reference to age.(2) The application which has given rise to the proceeding was filed by one Amirthammal, the petitioner, herein, of Melapannagaram, Madurai, against her son Marimuthu claiming maintenance for two children of Marimuthu, a son named Balakrishnan and a daughter Ramanujam, both of whom are living with her. It is seen from the order of Court below that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad1
(1) This appeal, which has been filed against the judgment of Jagadisan J. raises an important question relating to the construction of S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, which, for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to as the "Act". The precise form of the question before us is."Whether on the death of the sole surviving coparcener of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family, the widow of a predeceased coparcener, entitled to the benefits of the Act, will take by survivorship the entire family property?In Manorama Bai v. Rama Bai, a Bench of this court, while answering that question in the affirmative, held that by virtue of S. 3(2) of the Act, the widow, after her husband's death, will become a coparcener with the surviving male members of the family and that she would, on the death of the sole surviving coparcener take the joint family property to the exclusion of an heir of the latter. This view is fundamentally opposed to the concept of a coparcenery under the Mita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-22-1964
Reported in : [1964]15STC804(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1.This appeal arises from the order of the Board of Revenue revising the assessment on the assessee in exercise of its power under Setion 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959. The assessing authority examined the transactions of the appellant in regard inter alia to a claim made for exemption for a turnover of Rs. 6,14,144-4-9 under the heading of inter-State sales. It found that except in the case of a turnover of Rs. 1,521-1-9, the invoices in the remaining cases showed that the claim for exemption was sustainable and granted exemption accordingly for a sum of Rs. 6,12,623-3-0. This order was passed on 29th September, 1958. The Board of Revenue, by an order passed on 1st September, 1962, set aside this claim for exemption. It relied upon a later decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Leyland's case [1961] 12 S.T.C. 379. In the view of the Board of Revenue, the effect of the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, as well as the amendment to Setion 22 of the Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-1964
Reported in : AIR1965Mad62
(1) This reference to a special Bench has been necessitated by reason of certain doubts felt as to the correctness of the decision in Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . Thequestion that falls for determination on this reference can be formulated thus."Whether Rule 24 of the appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 in so far as it enables the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance, is ultra vires?"The facts giving rise to this reference are these:The assessee owned 1674 shares in Asher Textiles Ltd. and nine out of twenty shares in Textiles Corporation (P) Ltd, both at Tiruppur. The Textile Corporation (P.) Ltd, was the managing agent of the other company, its managing directors being the assessee and one Mr. Asher. differences appear to have arisen between these two, sometime during the year 1954 and the assessee agreed to sell and by a document dated 21-12-1954 and the assessee agreed to sell and by a document dated 21-12-1954, sold his entire holding in the two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-29-1964
Reported in : [1966]61ITR613(Mad)
RAMAKRISHNAN J. - In these three revision cases a common question arises as to how the term 'association in individuals' used in the definition of 'person' in section 2(q) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, has to be interpreted for the purpose of assessment under the said Act, and they were heard together. For the sake of convenience each case will be considered separately.Tax Case No. 49 of 1963.The facts as found by the authorities below are succinctly the following. The assessee, S. Subramania Iyer, filed for the accounting year April 14, 1957, to April 13, 1958, a return in Form II showing a net income of Rs. 1,798.87 nP. He owned 20 shares of lands in Inam Kottur Thottam Village and certain other lands, but with these latter items we are not now concerned. Out of the 20 shares of lands, 5 1/2 shares belonged to the Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam, which Subramania Iyer took on lease. 5 1/2 shares came to be owned by one Muthusubramaniam and his brothers, the daughters ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-28-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Mad96; [1965]58ITR439(Mad); (1964)1MLJ298
Srinivasan, J.(1) The assessee derived income from certain house properties in Burma during the accounting year ending with 30-9-1959, relevant to the assessment year 1960-61. In respect of the gross income of Rs. 28,020 received under this head, the assessee had to pay municipal taxes of Rs. 3,019 and service taxes of Rs. 7,116. The assessee claimed to be entitled to deduct these amounts in computing his income under this head of income from property.The Income-tax Officer, while accepting the position that the income under this head as per the Burma assessment order was only Rs. 17,275, refused to allow the deduction of the municipal tax, as no particulars regarding the claim were made available. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner observed that the income from property situate in Burma has to be computed in accordance with S. 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act, and, in doing so, tax, cess, etc. levied by a local authority must be taken to mean tax, cess and levy made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-21-1964
Reported in : AIR1966Mad247
ORDER(1) Application, by the Official Liquidators of the Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore under Ss. 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act for permission to sue under O.1, R. 8, C.P.C., on behalf of all the creditors of Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer and his estate for a declaration that the release deed executed by Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer dated 27-7-1945 is void against the Hanuman Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) and all other creditors and for directing the respondents, who are the sons of the late Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer, to compensate the Hanuman Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) in respect of the losses caused by the acts of misfeasance and breach of trust committed by their father to the extent of Rs. 14,08,647, and for costs.(2) The Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore was wound up on a creditor's petition dated 26-7-1947 by an order passed by this court on 5-11-1947. Messrs. Brahmayya and Co., have been appointed Official Liquidators by an order of this court dated 12-1-1948. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-16-1964
Reported in : AIR1967Mad381
1. This appeal is filed under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Kunhamed Kutti J., in Civil Suit No 84 of 1958, by the first defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking certain reliefs consequent upon the alleged infringement of copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Act (Act XIV of 1957). The plaintiff, a firm called the United Concern represented by its partner, S. Muthuswami, alleged that in the year 1947, it had contacted one T. M. Subramaniam, an artist, P. W 2 in the case, and got him to execute an oil painting of Lord Subramania in the posture of Kumaraguruparan. After getting this picture painted, the plaintiff acquired from the artist, all the rights in the picture for valuable consideration. Then in 1948, the plaintiff got the painting printed by the off-set process with the help of the well-known firm Associated Printers in Madras and copies of the picture thus printed were widely sold. There were reprints in 1933 and again in 1956. One of the copies...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-29-1964
Reported in : [1965]16STC62(Mad)
Ramamurti, J.1. Messrs Bengal Corporation Private Ltd., Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, a private limited company dealing in iron and steel goods is the petitioner in this revision petition relating to the assessment year 1957-1958.2. The brief facts are: Tenders for the supply of M.S. Sheets were called for by the Government of India, and the tender of the petitioner-company was accepted and a contract was entered into on 14th May, 1957, between the Government of India, Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta, and the petitioner-company. In pursuance of this contract the steel material was imported by the petitioner from London and delivered over to the Deputy Controller of Stores, I.C.F., Madras. The turnover in dispute is Rs. 34,51,010-98. The contention of the department is that the assessee imported the goods from London, cleared them from the customs frontier at Madras and then sold the same at Madras to the Deputy Controller of Stores, I.C.F., and therefore it was a local sale, and th...
Tag this Judgment!