Chennai Court August 1948 Judgments
G. Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. the Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ337
ORDER1. The Full Bench : (1949)1MLJ1 has now decided that the powers of this court to interfere under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, are strictly confined to the various categories enumerated in the judgment and unless any one of such categories exists, this court cannot interfere with an order of detention made by the Provincial Government. If the petitioner can bring his case within one of these instances, then according to the Full Bench, the detention is not one made in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act or in accordance with the provisions of the Act.2. Mr. A.K. Pillai contends that the Provincial Government in ordering the detention of the petitioner was actuated by mala fides with the result that the third circumstance mentioned in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice can be invoked in his client's favour and that the petitioner is therefore entitled to be released. For this argument, he placed reliance on the affidavit of Mr. K.G. Sivaswamy, dated the 24...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasarathy and anr. Vs. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ391
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a suit for declaration that the order of the Rent Controller dated the 5th April, 1948, passed in L. Dis. No. 4985 H. R. C. of 1947 in favour of the defendant is invalid, without jurisdiction and unenforceable as against the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said order.2. House, ground and premises No. 403, Mint Street, George Town, Madras, is owned by the defendant. The Corporation gave separate sub-numbers to portions of the said premises. In or about the middle of August, 1943, the first plaintiff obtained from the defendant a lease of a portion of that building numbered as 4/403, Mint Street, on a monthly rental of Rs. 55. Subsequently, by agreement between the parties the rent was increased to Rs. 60 per mensem. The first plaintiff failed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises for the month of July, 1947, before the end of August, 1947. In view of the default so made, the defendant filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!The Calico Printers' Association, Ltd. (Manchester) by Agents, the Met ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ536
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appellant is a sterling company incorporated in the United Kingdom. Messrs W. A. Beardsell & Co., Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has its registered office at Madras. Sir William Beardsell owned or controlled practically all the shares in the latter company. The applicant purchased from him 8190 ordinary shares sometime in 1940. Previously, it had purchased 4110 preference shares of the same company. A copy of the agreement relating to the purchase by the applicant from Sir William Beardsell is marked as Ex. T.A. It is necessary to set out material portions of this agreement on which ultimately the decision of the question referred to us in this case must depend. The preamble is as follows:Whereas(a) The vendor owns or controls all the shares in W. A. Beardsell & Co., Ltd (hereinafter called 'The Company') a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and having its registered office at Madras aforesai...
Tag this Judgment!Calico Printers Association Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1948
Reported in: [1949]17ITR149(Mad)
The judgement of the Court was delivered byRAJAMANNAR, C.J. - The applicant is a sterling company incoporated in the United Kingdom. Messrs. W.A. Beardsell & Co., Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and has its registered office at Madras. Sir William Beardsell owned or controlled practically all the shares in the latter company. The applicant purchased from him 8,190 ordinary shares sometime in 1940. Previously, it had purchased 4,110 preference shares of the same company. A copy of the agreement relating to the purchase by the applicant from Sir William Beardsell is marked as Exhibit TA. It is necessary to set out material portions of this agreemtn on which ultimately the decision of the question referred to us in this case must depend. The preamble is as follows :-'WHEREAS(a) The vendor owns or controls all the shares in W.A. Beardsell & Co., Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'), a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and ha...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam and ors. Vs. Mr. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ521
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These petitions originally came on for disposal before Govinda Menon, J., who considered that they raised an important question as to the applicability of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code to the facts of the case, the question being whether when one of a group of trustees who are parties to an appeal dies, the provision of law applicable for bringing on record his successor is Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 or Order 22, Rule 10.2. We do not think it necessary to go into this question, because these petitions have been filed in Civil Revision Petitions, and not in appeals. Order 22, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly makes the provisions of that order applicable to appeals and says that the word ' plaintiff' shall be held to include an appellant, the word ' defendant ' a respondent, and the word ' suit 'an appeal. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure making the provisions of Order 22, applicable to Civil Revision Petitions. In the App...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.G.B.U.G.M.S.S.A. Mohamad Abdul Kareem and Co. and anr. Vs. the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ528
Yahya Ali, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the assessees concerned in these cases, referred to this Court, the following identical question in both the cases:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the assessee is an ' association of persons' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income-tax Act is correct in law.The facts in both the cases are also identical and it is convenient to treat them together.2. Several persons formed into a partnership agreeing that all the shops leased in the names of those persons should be run by the partnership. In Referred Case No. 18 there were ten persons who had taken leases of ten arrack shops separately and had constituted themselves into a partnership by deed dated 24th February, 1943, and agreed that the firm should conduct business in the vilasam of K.P.G.B.U.G.M.S.S.A. Mohamad Abdul Karim and Co. In R.C. No. 19, sixteen perso...
Tag this Judgment!K. P. G. B. U. G. M. S. S. A. Mohamad Abdul Kareem and Co. Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1948
Reported in: [1948]16ITR412(Mad)
YAHYA ALI, J. - Under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the assessees concerned in these cases, referred to this Court, the following identical question in both the cases :-'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals finding that the assessee is an association of persons within the meaning of Section 3 of the Income Tax Act is correct in law.'The facts in both the cases are also identical and it is convenient to treat them together.Several persons formed into a partnership agreeing that all the shops leased in the names of those persons should be run by the partnership. In Referred Case No. 18 there were ten persons who had taken leases of ten attract shops separately and had constituted themselves into a partnership by deed dated 24th February, 1943, and agreed that the firm should conduct business in the vilasam of K. P. G. B. U. G. M. S. S. A. Mohammed Abdul Kareem & Co. In Referred Case No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalam Chetty and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ866; (1949)1MLJ646
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Tiruchirapalli Town, apprehending that a breach of the peace is likely to occur between the petitioners and counter-petitioners herein regarding the possession of certain lands and houses belonging to Chetty Chatram Charities applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, for necessary enquiry and action; whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate sent up the records to the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, apparently because of the heavy file in the former's Court. The Additional District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, transferred the case to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, for enquiry and disposal. It so happened that the Additional First Class Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction over some of the properties; but this was not noticed or apparently realised when a preliminary order was passed on 17th July, 1948, under Section 145...
Tag this Judgment!R. Nilakanta Iyer Vs. Ramanarayana Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1948
Reported in: (1948)2MLJ504
Rajagopalan, J.1. This petition arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff. The correctness of the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge under issue No. 15, which was taken up for preliminary adjudication has been challenged in revision by the plaintiff. Issue No. 16 was also decided, and against that decision C.R.P. No. 1735 of 1947 was filed by the fourth defendant, but that petition was not pressed and was eventually dismissed.2. In the suit for partition that the plaintiff instituted, he impleaded his brothers, defendants 5 and 6, his father the first defendant, and his mother, the second defendant. Besides, the third defendant, the daughter of the family, and the fourth defendant, her husband, were also made party defendants.3. Two items of property in which the plaintiff claimed a share were leases, one the lease of certain properties in Thiruvaduthurai and the other a lease of certain other properties in Narasingampettai village both in Tanjore District.4....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subbaratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ950
Mack, J.1. We have heard several batches of appeals which arise out of grave riota in Karuc on 20th July 1946 in the course of which arson was committed in several buildings, and the movables therein including two motor oars, jutkas, bales of yarn, bandloom goods, iron safes etc., were burnt by a frenzied mob composed mainly of weavers who got completely out of hand. We are particularly concerned in these appeals with the family of Maiiappa Mudaliar who had a handloom weaving factory in the Coimbatore road in which he had no looms worked by we avers for wages. In the by-pass road which takes off to the south almost opposite his factory building, in a portion of which he also resided with his family, there were three other buildings occupied by his brother's sons, Arumugam and Subramaniam and his brother-in-law Manikka Mudaliar. Mariappa Mudaliar had a garage and stable adjoining these buildings in which he kept his ford oar, three jutkas and two horses. his factory and all thecae build...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »