Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1964 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.209 seconds)

Jan 15 1964 (HC)

In Re: Ramaswamy Nadar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-15-1964

Reported in : 1965CriLJ366

..... admission of the commission of the act would, but for the explanation furnished by him, be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation. this rationale of this decision is well brought out in the following observations of the supreme court at page 327:where a person accused of committing an offence sets up at his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1964 (HC)

E.M. Forster and anr. Vs. A.N. Parasuram

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-09-1964

Reported in : AIR1964Mad331

..... section 35 (1) of act iii of 1914; 'infringing' is interpreted as 'any copy, including any colourable imitation, made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this act.' the rationale of this statute was thus expressed by lord atkinson in macmillan and co. ltd., v. k. and j. cooper, 46 mlj 637 : ilr 48 bom 308 : air 1924 pc 75 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 1964 (HC)

M. Chettiappan and Another Vs. Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and Anot ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-27-1964

Reported in : [1964]54ITR293(Mad)

..... been decided by the bench decision of this court referred to above.before dealing with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to set out the rationale and the precise scope of the decision in first additional income-tax v. r. shanmuga rajeswara sethupathi.1. articles 132 to 136 of part v of the constitution which deal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 1964 (HC)

E.M. Forster and ors. Vs. A.N. Parasuram

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-09-1964

Reported in : (1964)1MLJ431

..... section 35(1) of act iii of 1914. ' infringing 'is interpreted as' any copy, including any colourable imitation, made or imported in contravention of the provisions of this act'. the rationale of this statute was thus expressed by lord atkinson in macmillan & company ltd. v. k. and j. cooper (1923) 46 m.l.j. 637 : i.l.r. 48 bom. 292 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 1964 (HC)

Atmakur Venkatasubbiah Chetty and anr. Vs. Thirupurasundari Ammal and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad185

..... and do not fall within the definition of a suit, it is impossible to hold under the circumstances that his decision was intended to operate s res judicata.'applying the rationale of the above decisions we held that the machinery provided under s. 69-a is purely of a summary nature and does not contemplate any decision or adjudication so as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 01 1964 (HC)

Sha Manumal Misrimal Vs. Natha Rukmani Ammal

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-01-1964

Reported in : (1964)1MLJ312

t. venkatadri, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the possession of the appellant herein, who is a tenant in respect of premises no. 20, kasi chetty street, george town, madras, on a rent of rs. 550 per month. the appellant is occupying the entire premises of the aforesaid suit property except for three shops on the front side in the ground floor and two rooms and one bathroom on the northern side in the first floor. the respondent-landlord terminated the tenancy by giving a notice, dated 10th october, 1960, to the appellant-tenant, and called upon him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises by the end of october, 1960. the appellant, however, failed and neglected to comply with the demand. thereupon, the landlord filed the suit aforesaid in the city civil court, madras (o.s. no. 2915 of 1960) for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property from the appellant-tenant. the suit was resisted by the appellant herein stating that he has been in occupation of the house both for residential and non-residential purposes, that the building has not been exempted from the provisions of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960, and that, in any event, the exemption provided in the act offends article 14 of the constitution, which provides for equality before law and that therefore he was not liable to be evicted. the learned fifth assistant judge of the city .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 1964 (HC)

The State of Madras Vs. M.P.V. Sundararamier and Company

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-23-1964

Reported in : [1966]18STC516(Mad)

k. srinivasan, j.1. these appeals are directed against the judgment of veeraswami, j., rendered in applications under article 226. the matter arises thus. the respondent-company are dealers in cotton yarn, carrying on business with headquarters at madras and branches in madurai and coimbatore. the yarn in which they deal consists of yarn purchased locally as well as imported. for five assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1953-54, they submitted returns and were assessed to sales tax on those returns. now, it appears that at the time of the preparation of the appeal memorandum in connection with the order of assessment for 1954-55, the dealers discovered that their returns for the years in question were erroneous, in that in the categories of sales that were brought to tax, the sales of yarn purchased by them locally as well as the transfer of cotton yarn from headquarters to the branches were included. it is not in dispute that sale of cotton yarn is taxable at a single point at the stage of the first sale. the first category of local purchases were accordingly second sales. the transfers of cotton yarn from the headquarters to the branches involved no sale transaction at all. the dealers had, nevertheless, been charged to tax in respect of these two categories of transactions, no doubt, based on their own erroneous returns. on the discover)' of this fact, the respondents made an application to the board of revenue. they pointed out that the inclusion of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1964 (HC)

A. Haji Abdul Shukoor and Company Vs. the State of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-15-1964

Reported in : [1965]16STC808(Mad)

ramamurti, j.1. the main point that arises for decision relates to the legality of the order passed by the deputy commissioner on 3rd july, 1961, in exercise of his powers of revision under section 32 of the madras general sales tax act, 1959 (hereinafter called the act). the brief facts of the case are :the petitioners, who are tanners and dealers in hides and skins, were assessed to sales tax by the deputy commercial tax officer by his order dated 12th february, 1954, on a turnover of rs. 7,68,298-1-0 for the year (1952-53), and, on appeal by the assessee, this assessment was confirmed by the commerical tax officer, north arcot, by his order dated 4th march, 1955. the deputy commercial tax officer, by an order dated 30th november, 1957, revised the assessment refixing the taxable and licence turnover of the assessee at rs. 1,01,597-2-9, purporting to follow certain decisions of the madras high court. the deputy commercial tax officer took the view that the turnover of rs. 6,66,700-14-3 ought not to have been included in the original assessment. the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, coimbatore division (suo motu), exercised his powers of revision under section 32 of the act, and, by his order dated 3rd july, 1961, he restored the original order of the deputy commerical tax officer dated 12th february, 1954, and determined the turnover at rs. 7,68,298-1-0 after hearing the objections of the petitioners. the petitioners preferred an appeal to the sales tax appellate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 22 1964 (HC)

Cement Distributors Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-22-1964

Reported in : [1966]60ITR586(Mad)

srinivasan j. - the assessee, messrs. cement distributors private limited, disclosed the total profits for the account year ended 31st of october, 1953, relevant to the assessment year 1954-55 as rs. 2,10,941. the directors declared a dividend of rs. 81,150. at the time of assessment, however, the income-tax officer determined the income to be rs. 3,91,143. this increase was due to the disallowance of a claim to an alleged trading loss of rs. 2,12,691. this loss was held to be not genuine. against this disallowance there was an appeal to the appellate assistant commissioner and a further appeal to the tribunal both of whom held that he transaction leading to be alleged loss were unreal and had been recorded with an ulterior motive. an application to make a reference under section 66(1) of the act was dismissed. when the matter came before this court under section 66(2) of the act, this court to be served that the transactions had been founds to be bogus ones and, consequently, the loss claimed as a result of these transactions would equally be a sham one. in so far as the disallowance was concerned, there the matter ended.at the time of making the assessment, the income-tax officer issued a notice under action 28(11)(c) of the income-tax act. after hearing the assessee the income-tax officer held that by the device indicated, the assessee had deliberately understated the real income. he accordingly imposed a penalty of rs. 40,000 as against the maximum penalty that could be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1964 (HC)

A.L. Parthasarathi Mudaliar Vs. Venkata Kondiah Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-25-1964

Reported in : AIR1965Mad188

venkatadri, j.(1) this letters patent appeal is preferred by the first defendant against the judgment of ramakrishnan j. modifying the decree of the trial judge and directing the first defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of item 1 of the plaint schedule properties on receipt of rs. 4750 in pursuance of the agreement to sell items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule to the plaintiff. one loganatha mudaliar was the original owner of these two items of properties. he purchased item 1 in his name and item 2 in the name of his wife rathnammal. he had two sons, the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant. his wife died in the year 1947 and he died in the year 1955. it was alleged in the plaint that the defendants in the suit entered into an oral agreement on 7-2-1957 to convey the two suit items for rs.5750 and subsequently an agreement of sale was executed by both the defendants and a sum of rs.1000/- was paid as advance. according to the terms of the agreement the sale had to be completed within three months failing which the defendants had to pay to the plaintiff a sum of rs. 5000 as and for damages to the plaintiff. before the plaintiff entered into the agreement to purchase these two items of properties he made and enquiry in respect of the second item as it was purchased in the name of the first defendant's mother and the first defendant assured the plaintiff that his sisters would not claim these properties as they had already .....

Tag this Judgment!


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