Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.057 seconds)

Oct 13 1961 (HC)

Lakshminarayana Reddiar Vs. Singaravelu Naicker and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-13-1961

Reported in : AIR1963Mad24

..... which the parties intended should be the date when the contract could be performed. this principle, though not explicitly stated in the decision cited, above, is in our opinion the rationale behind the ruling of the decision. 14. support is found for this principle in full bench decision in muthu korakki chetty v. nadar ammal, ilr 43 mad 185 : air 1920 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1961 (HC)

The Tamil Nad Non-gazetted Government Officers Union, Madras and anr. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-06-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Mad234; [1962(5)FLR168]; (1962)ILLJ753Mad

..... that civil servants of the present association could not be considered as workmen at all. next, the learned judge pointed out that the concept of "collective bargaining", which is the rationale behind the trade union movement and the existence of the trade unions was wholly inappropriate when applied to government servants.this was all the more so in this country where .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1961 (HC)

K.M. Goel, Proprietor Vs. the State of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-14-1961

Reported in : [1961]12STC527(Mad)

srinivasan, j. 1. by section 2 of the madras act xv of 1949, section 3(1), the charging section of the madras general sales tax act, 1939, was amended by the addition of a proviso in these terms :-provided that if and to the extent to which such turnover relates to articles of food and drink sold in a hotel, boarding house or restaurant, the tax shall be calculated at the rate of 41/2 pies for every rupee if the turnover relating to these articles is not less than rs. 25,000.2. the constitutionality of this proviso was challanged in a. r. kirshna iyer v. state of madras [1956] 7 s.t.c. 346. it was contended therein that the impugned proviso offended against article 14 of the constitution. this court upheld the contention holding :in our opinion, the distinction between two classes of dealers in articles of food and drink with an annual turnover of rs. 25,000 and more, i.e., (i) dealers in such articles of food and drink sold in hotels, boarding houses and restaurants; (ii) dealers in such articles of food and drink sold elsewhere, has no reasonable or just relation to the object of the act, which is to tax the turnover of the sales of a dealer. the apparent discrimination, which results in one class of such dealers being singled out for levy of tax at a higher rate, has not been explained by any classification with a reasonable basis, having a just and reasonable relation to the object of the act. we are of opinion that the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of the act offends .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1961 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the India Cements, Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-31-1961

Reported in : (1963)1MLJ369

k. srinivasan, j.1. the india cements, limited, madras, obtained a loan of rs. 40 lakhs from the indian finance corporation on the mortgage of the company's assets. the necessary expenditure incurred in connection therewith came to rs. 84,633 such expenditure including the stamps and the registration fee for the document,, counsel's fee and legal fees for drafting, etc., and certain other minor incidental charges. the transaction was entered into on 4th october, 1949 in the account year relevant to the assessment year 1950-51. the loan was repayable by the assessee in annual instalments of rs. 4 lakhs from 1st october, 1952. this expenditure was carried on the accounts of the assessee in its balance-sheet as mortgage loan expenses. in the accounts for the year ending 31st march, 1953, it was written off by appropriation against the profits of that year. during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1950-51, the claim was made by the assessee before the income-tax officer that this expenditure should be allowed as an item of necessary expense coming within the scope of section 10(2)(xv). the income-tax officer found that even according to the information furnished by the auditors, rs. 25 lakhs out of the amount borrowed was paid in discharge of a loan taken earlier from messrs. harvey, ltd., which amount had been borrowed and ' utilised on the capital assets ' of the assessee company. it was not however clear how the balance of rs. 15 lakhs was dealt with. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1961 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. India Cements, Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-31-1961

Reported in : [1963]47ITR438(Mad)

srinivasan j. - the indian cements ltd., madras, obtained a loan of rs. 40 lakhs from the indian finance corporation on the mortgage of the companys assets. the necessary expenditure incurred in connection therewith came to rs. 84,633, such expenditure including the stamps and the registration fee for the document, counsels fee and legal fees for drafting, etc., and certain other minor incidental charges. the transaction was entered into on october 4, 1949, in the account year relevant to the assessment year 1950-51. the loan was repayable by the assessee in annual instalment of rs. 4 lakhs from october 1, 1952. this expenditure was carried to the accounts of the assessee in its balance-sheet as mortgage loan expenses. in the accounts for the year ending march 31, 1953, it was written off by appropriation against the profits of that year. during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1950-51, the claim was made by the assessee before the income-tax officer that this expenditure should be allowed as an item of necessary expenses coming within the scope of section 10(2) (xv). the income-tax officer found that, even according to the information furnished by the auditors, rs. 25 lakhs out of the amount borrowed was paid in discharge of a loan taken earlier from messrs. harvey ltd., which amount had been borrowed and 'utilised on the capital assets' of the assessee company. it was not, however, clear how the balance of rs. 15 lakhs was death with the income-tax officer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 1961 (HC)

D.S. Srinath Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-31-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Mad379; (1962)IILLJ124Mad

order(1) this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution to quash the order of the general manager, southern railway, madras dated 30-12-1958 informing the petitioner that as his services were no longer required by the railway administration they were, in accordance with rule 148 of the indian railway establishment code, vol. i, terminated with effect from the forenoon of 30-12-1958. by the same order, the general manager further in. formed the petitioner that he would be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice of termination of his services. the petitioner was served with the order the same day. this petition was presented on 4-3-1959.(2) the petitioner entered service in june 1949 as a ticket collector in the then south indian railway. he was so appointed by the general manager, south indian railway. after the reorganisation of various zones of the rail ways, the petitioned became an employee of the indian railways working in the southern railway. in 1950 he was promoted as a travelling ticket examiner and functioned as such until the date of the termination of his services. by a communication dated 24-2-1956, the general manager informed the petitioner that he considered that he was reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, that his retention in service was, on that account, prejudicial to national security and that, consequently, it was proposed to terminate his services in term of rule 148 of the indian railway establishment code, as provided .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1961 (HC)

Sv. P. N. Sithambara Nadar Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1961

Reported in : [1962]46ITR318(Mad)

srinivasan j. - the assessee is a firm doing business at virudhunagar. it is a partnership concern consisting of three partners. its status under the income-tax law was that of a registered firm. it was assessed to excess profits tax in the chargeable accounting period commencing on january 31, 1941, and ending on january 30, 1942. now it appears that the same partners of this assessee firm were also carrying on a business at madurai. previously that business had been an unregistered partnership of these three persons and one seeni nadar. this seeni nadar died on the 23rd december, 1940. subsequently thereto, that business was carried on in partnership by these three persons and the profits were divided in the same ratio as in respect of the virudhunagar business. in making the assessment to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting period referred to, the excess profits tax officer aggregated the profits of the madurai business along with the virudhunagar business. from this order of assessment, an appeal was taken to the appellate assistant commissioner objecting to the aggregation of the two businesses. that contention was rejected. in the further appeal to the tribunal, this objection was further pressed with the same result. during the appeal before the tribunal, it was also contended that if the aggregation of the profits of two businesses was permissible, the deficiency of profits in respect of the madurai business for the periods prior to the chargeable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1961 (HC)

P. K. N. Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-01-1961

Reported in : [1963]47ITR195(Mad)

srinivasan j. - a registered firm of the vilasam of 'p. k. n.' was carrying on money-lending business at several places in india as well as in malaya. in the year 1937, the partners of the firm incorporated a private limited company under the name of 'p. k. n. company ltd.' this company is the assessee. we shall refer in due course to the memorandum and articles of association of the company. to this company were transferred all the properties of the erstwhile partners of the firm, such properties as were situated in the district of muar in malaya. these properties consisted of several rubber and coconut plantations, houses and vacant sites. the process of this transfer which was item by item went on till 1940. the total value of the purchases came roughly to 16 1/2 lakhs of dollars. in the year of account ending 31st march, 1941, the company also purchased an estate known as lee rubber estate for 2,62,655 dollars. this property is said to have adjoined the other rubber estates owned by the firm and subsequently transferred to the company. it also purchased a small house property for 5,000 dollars on 7th july, 1941. we may state even here that after 1941 the company did not purchase any other items of property.the share capital of the company was 6,60,000 dollars. it was treated as fully paid up and shares were allotted to the various partners of the firm who became the shareholders of the company. the balance of the purchase consideration was retained as a liability of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1961 (HC)

In Re: Ratnamala and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-11-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Mad31

(1) these are related appeals from the judgment of the learned iiird presidency magistrate, madras in c. c. no. 6640 of 1959 on his file. the learned magistrate convicted one b. s. babu (accused 1) and his sister ratnamala (accused 3) under s. 3 (1) of the suppression of immoral traffic in women and girls act (central act 104 of 1956), and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of rs. 10, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week.(2) certain questions of considerable importance, both with regard to the implementation of certain provisions of this act, and with regard to the entire technique adopted by the authorities in enforcing this piece oflegislation, have arisen in these appeals. i propose to deal with them at some length, for they are certainly questions of importance to the citizen as well as the state. but, befoer doing so, i shall briefly set out the facts which the prostitution has claimed to have established by the evidencew. i shall later advert to certain aspects of the testimony in grater detail, but a broad outline of the facts will be essential as an introduction to the questions actually argued before me.(3) the assistant commissioaner of police vigilance (p. w. 4) had information from an undisclosed source that the two appellants and their mother were keeping and maintaining a brothel in the upstair portion of no. 22 poes road, teynampet. the landlady gowri ammal (p. w. 3) has been examined in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1961 (HC)

R. Gangapathi Pillai Vs. P.A. Irudayasamy Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-14-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Mad345

order(1) the petitioner is the plaintiff. he sued to recover an amount which he claimed was due to him in respect of certain constructions which he had put up on the premises leased to him by the defendant respondent. the premises is a mill and it is not denied by the defendant that he had agreed to put up certain additional constructions thereon. subsequently, however, the plaintiff was permitted by the defendant to put up the constructions at his own expense on the promise that he would he reimbursed therefor. when finally that amount was not so paid, the plaintiff brought the matter to court. in the plaint, he specifically pleaded art agreement whereunder the defendant had agreed to pay the value of these structures. the learned subordinate judge, while he found against the contention of the defendant that it was he himself who had put up these contentions, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the specific agreement set up by him, and that agreement failing, lie proceeded to dismiss the suit. it is against that judgment that the present revision petition has been filed.(2) on the factum of who put up the additional structures, i have no doubt whatsoever that the learned subordinate judge came to the correct conclusion that it was the plaintiff who expended the moneys therefor and put up these constructions. it is not necessary to examine whether the alleged oral agreement specifically relied upon by the plaintiff, whereunder, according to him, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //