Chennai Court April 1908 Judgments
The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Limited Vs. the Corporation of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ349
1. The question referred for our decision is Does the word 'capital' used in Schedule V of the Municipal Act III of 1904 mean exclusively nominal capital or does it also include paid-up capital and, if so, should it be taken to mean paid-up capital exclusively?2. The law (Section 176, Madras City Municipal Act, 1904) hardly contemplates a reference in such general and abstract terms. It only empowers the Magistrates to state a case on any appeal before them and refer the same for the decision of the High Court, that is, to state all the matters necessary for the decision of the particular case before them on appeal and to refer the case so stated for decision. The facts are, however, fully stated in the reference, and we proceed to deal with them.3. The case arises out of a dispute between the Madras Municipality and the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund, Limited, as to the basis on which the fund should be charged with professional tax. The Municipality claims to tax the fund under Clause...
Tag this Judgment!Cherukuru Musaly and ors. Vs. Cherukuru Lakshumayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1908
Reported in: (1908)18MLJ602
1. The principal question of law now raised was not raised in the Courts below. It is now contended that the case is governed by Article 32 and not by Article 120 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act relying on Soman Gope v. Raghubir Ojha I.L.R. (1896) C 160, and Sharoop Dass Mondal v. Joggeshsur Roy Chowduri I.L.R. (1899) C. 564. These cases, however, are clearly distinguishable. As, in the present case, the parties are co-owners of the laud in question and not landlords, we think Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies and not Article 32. It is next argued that a mandatory injunction should not have been granted.2. Here, however, the plaintiffs objected and the defendants first commenced to obstruct the joint way and have continually been objecting since. Moreover, it is clear that unless the obstructions are removed the way which is common not only to the plaintiffs but to others cannot be used for the purposes for which it was set apart to the great injury and damage of all the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›