Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1962 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.028 seconds)

Jul 20 1962 (HC)

P.A.T. Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Vaheesan, Minor and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-20-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Mad405

..... a benefit under a deed, he would be prevented from repudiating the burden laid on him by that deed. in our opinion, no detailed discussion of the facts or the rationale of the two decisions is called for, because there is no room in this case for the application of that principle.9. in another view also, we must hold that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 22 1962 (HC)

Bhagat Estates Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-22-1962

Reported in : [1964]53ITR683(Mad)

..... strike down any enactment in whole or in part if it is a discriminatory piece of legislation, giving rise to invidious distinction between persons in an arbitrary manner without any rationale behind them and without the support of logic or reason. the question, therefore, is whether section 34(1)(b), standing as it does, uncontrolled by the conditions enacted in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1962 (HC)

Rainbow Trading Co. by Its Proprietor S. Heerachand Vs. Assistant Coll ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-30-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Mad434; 1963CriLJ636

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j.1. this appeal, filed against the judgment of balakrishna ayyar, j., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of section 171-a of the sea customs act. that provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes articles 14 and 20(3) of the constitution. but the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. but in view of importance of the matter and as the learned advocate-general had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned counsel for the appellant to argue that point.2. we shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the fundamental rights declared under articles 14 and 20(3).3. the appellant is a merchant at madras trading under the name of rainbow trading company, who for the purposes of his business, imports electrical goods from foreign countries.4. import trade is now regulated and controlled by the provisions of the import and export control act, 1947, the rules under which make it obligatory on the importer to obtain a suitable licence for the purpose and to conform to the conditions prescribed therein. section 3 (2) of the import and export control act provides that importation of goods contrary to the restrictions imposed thereunder would .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1962 (HC)

Thirumal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-30-1962

Reported in : AIR1964Mad13; [1963]48ITR745(Mad)

jagadisan, j.1. messrs. thirumal and co., ltd., referred to in this judgment as the assessee, is a private limited company carrying on the business of managing agents of another company, called thirumagal mills ltd. for the assessment year 1956-57, corresponding to the previous year ending 31st march 1956, the assessee was assessed on a total income of rs. 1,20,863. the paid up capital of the assessee company is rs. 2000. a dividend of rs. 60,000 was declared by the assessee to be distributed to its share-holders. the dividend thus declared and distributed was clearly in excess of six per cent of its paid up capital. the income-tax officer, vellore, who made the assessment applied the provisions of the finance act of 1956 and reduced the amount of rebate of super tax from four annas in the rupee to which normally the assessee would be entitled. that part of the dividend which exceeded six per cent but did not exceed ten per cent of the paid up capital suffered a reduction of rebate at the rate of two annas per rupee and the other part of the dividend which exceeded ten per cent of the paid up capital suffered a reduction of rebate at the rate of three annas per rupee. this computation by the income-tax officer was in accordance with the provisions of the finance act of 1956, schedule i, part ii group d, second proviso, sub-para (b). the assessee preferred an appeal to the appellate assistant commissioner and urged the contention that the income-tax officer erred in applying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1962 (HC)

G. K. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala and Coim ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-14-1962

Reported in : [1963]48ITR756(Mad)

srinivasan j. - the questions referred for our determination are : '(1) whether the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) are ultra vires as offending article 14 of the constitution of india.(2) whether the dividend income of the divided minor son is assessable in the hands of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the income-tax act ?'the assessee and his minor son were members of a hindu undivided family up to the assessment year 1952-53. there was a division between them effected under a registered deed of partition on the 23rd july, 1952. thereafter the assessee was assessed as an individual.on the 4th july, 1956, the assessee transferred certain shares to his minor divided son. during the year ended 31st march, 1957, a sum of rs. 18,165 was received as dividend on the above said shares. the income-tax officer included this amount in the total income of the assessee, the father, applying the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iv) of the act. it was contended before the income-tax officer that since the transfer of the shares was in favour of a divided minor son, the above provision would not apply. it is also urged that the case of a divided minor son should be treated on a par with the case of a minor married daughter for the purpose of the application of the relevant provision. these contentions were not accepted by the income-tax officer and also by the appellate assistant commissioner. on a further appeal to the tribunal, the same contentions were reiterated. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1962 (HC)

J.D. Nichani and anr. Vs. State of Madras Represented by Its Secretary ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-18-1962

Reported in : AIR1964Mad30; (1963)IMLJ202

s. ramachandra iyer, c.j.1. the petitioners in these two petitions are carrying on business as money-lenders in the city of madras and salem respectively and they have approached this court by means of these two petitions under article 228 of the constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ to direct the state of madras to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the madras money lenders act (madras act xxvi of 1957) hereafter to be referred to as the act. in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions the constitutional validity of the act and in particular of sections 2(6) to (8), 4(3), 10 and 14 of the act have been challenged, the contention being that they contravene either or both the fundamental rights guaranteed under arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution.2. the act came into force on 16-10-1959 and it forms part of a series of legislative measures enacted by the state legislature to control and regulate the profession of money lending. the preamble to the act states:'whereas it is expedient to make provision for the regulation and control of the business of money-lenders in the state of madras.'while the preamble might not be useful as a guide to the construction of a statute where the terms thereof are clear, it has always been regarded as conclusive of the reasons which motivated the parliament or the legislature to bring the legislation in question. it is also permissible where the constitutional validity of an enactment is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1962 (HC)

Madras Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-11-1962

Reported in : [1964]51ITR152(Mad)

jagadisan j. - this is a reference under section 66 of the indian income-tax act raising a question which, judged in terms of the statute, as indeed it ought to be, present no difficulty. in answering the question in favour of the revenue, justice according to law will undoubtedly be done. but whether there should be an amendment of the statute to temper legal justice with equity is a matter worthy of consideration by the legislature.the madras co-operative central land mortgage bank ltd., madras, the assessee in this case, is a co-operative society registered under the co-operative societies act, 1912. one of the sources of income of the assessee is interest from securities. for the year ended june 30, 1955, the previous year for the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee earned the sum of rs. 4,30,453 as interest from government securities. the assessees contention before the department was that there should be a deduction from the said amount in accordance with certain departmental instructions published in the income-tax manual, to which reference will be made later. these instructions were, however, deleted from the manual in its 10th edition, which was the edition in force during the relevant assessment year. the additional income-tax officer, city circle ii, madras, refused to give relief to the assessee on the basis of the departmental instructions contained in the previous manual, but was of the opinion that the explanation to section 8 of the act, which came into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 15 1962 (HC)

The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Thiagarajan Shiyali

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-15-1962

Reported in : AIR1964Mad58; [1963]49ITR581(Mad)

jagadisan, j.1. this reference raises a question of hindu law. one srinivasa mudaliar and his son thiagarajan originally constituted a hindu undivided family governed by the mitakshara school of hindu law. the family owned considerable moveable and immoveable properties. there was a partition between the father and the son on the 1st april 1951. thereafter each of them was separately assessed to income-tax as 'individuals' in respect of their income from the divided assets, received by them on partition. srinivasa mudaliar died on the 14th december 1953. he was survived by his widow, the mother of thiagarajan, and his son thiagarajan. in respect of the assets of srinivasa mudaliar, which he had obtained at the partiton referred to thiagarajan and his mother claimed joint ownership. they applied for succession certificate to realise amounts invested by way of fixed deposits and for collection of dividends due from shares of limited companies.for the years ended 31st march 1955 and 31st march 1956 the previous years for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, returns were made by thiagarajan and his mother in the status of a hindu undivided family. these returns were only in respect of the income derived from the assets left by srinivasa mudaliar. as stated already, thiagarajan had obtained his share at the partition between himself and his father, and he had his own separate income from those properties. the income tax officer held that the properties left by srinivasa .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1962 (HC)

Pappu Reddiar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-30-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Mad209; [1962]46ITR825(Mad)

ramachandra iyer, c.j.1. two persons pappu reddiar and sankaralingam pillai, the appellants before us, had simple money claims against the estate of a. s. t. f. rodrigues, whose sons are respondents 2 and 3. the creditors brought a suit for administration of the estate of the deceased rodrigues ana in the course of administration it appears that a sum of about rs. two lakhs had been brought into court. there were income tax assessment proceedings in regard to the estate of the deceased in the hands of his sons, and the income-tax department, had a claim of nearly rs. 2,38,819-14-0 by way of arrears of income tax. the second additional income-tax officer, tuticorin, applied on behalf of the union of india in i. a. no. 430 of 1957 in the administration suit referred to above for payment of the arrears clue to the department out of the monies in deposit in the administration suit.it was claimed on behalf of the petitioner who is the first respondent before us that as amongst the simple money creditors who were alone parties to the administration suit the charge holders having been already paid--the government would have a preferential claim for payment. this was accepted by the lower court and the amount in deposit was directed to be paid out in discharge of the income-tax arrears. the two creditors feelingaggrieved by the decree of the lower court have filed this appeal.2. it is contended on their behalf that although they were only simple money creditors of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1962 (HC)

A.L. Parthasarathi Mudaliar Vs. Venkata Kondiah Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-30-1962

Reported in : AIR1963Mad106

ramakrishnan, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned iv assistant judge of the city civil court in o. s. no. 901 of 1957, a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property. one loganatha mudaliar purchased the plaint-schedule item 1 in his name and the plaint schedule item 2 in the name of his wife, rathanammal. loganatha mudaliar died in 1955 and rathanammal died in 1947, toganatha mudaliar executed the will ex. b-1, dated 1-3-1954 under which he gave the plaint schedule item 1 (two acres and 85 cents) in kodur village in rajampet taluk in cuddappah dt. to his son, parthasarthi mudaliar, the first defendant in the suit, he gave item 2 of the plaint schedule (1 acre and 41 cents) land in kodur village to his daughters who are not parties to this suit; he gave some other property to his daughter-in-law, nagarathnammal, who had, at that time, lost her husband and who is the second defendant in the suit. it is alleged by the plaintiff, in the suit, that the first and the second defendants had executed the agreement marked as ex. a-1 in the case to sell the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 for a consideration of rs. 5750. rs. one thousand was paid immediately and the balance was agreed to be paid within three months. there was also a provision that in case of default, the promisor would pay rs. 5000 as penalty. on the ground that the defendants defaulted in executing the sale deeds as promised by them even though .....

Tag this Judgment!


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