Chennai Court January 1954 Judgments
K.M. Abbu Chettiar Vs. Hyderabad State Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1001; [1954]24CompCas221(Mad); (1954)IMLJ566
Ramaswami, J.1. The suit is for ordering the defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., forthwith to release and deliver over to the plaintiff Abbu Chettiar the goods, viz., 4050 bags of gingelly oil seeds described in the plaint schedule and for damages of Rs. 1800 and for an interim order directing the defendant to deliver over to the plaintiff the said goods and for costs.2. The case for the plaintiff is as follows: He is a merchant carrying on business in gingelly, caster and groundnut oil as manufacturer and wholesale dealer and distributor with head office at No. 81, Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras, and branches all over the City. The defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., with its Head Office in Hyderabad State, has its branch office at Linghi Chetty Street, George Town, Madras. The plaintiff had dealings with the defendant bank on a produce loan account.On the forenoon of 23-12-1952 the plaintiff sent his clerk, Rukmangadan, P. W. 4, with a cash of Rs. 2000 to pay it i...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaskaran Thirumulpad and ors. Vs. Kavunni Thirumulpad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad987; (1954)IIMLJ294
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalsm in O. S. No. 85 of 1944, a suit filed by the appellants for partition and for delivery of possession to the plaintiffs and their mother, defendant 14, of their 7/20 share in the tarwad properties described in the plaint B schedule. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the parties did not cover the entire field of disputes occupied in the court below. It would, therefore, be sufficient if the necessary facts relevant to the questions raised were stated.2. Defendants 1, 2, 6, 9 and 12 to 14 are the children of Kunhikutti Kolpad and her husband Kunhan Nedungadi. Plaintiffs are the children of defendant 14. The other defendants are the children of defendants 2, 6 and 9. Originally, Kunhitcutti Kolpad and her children were members of a tarwad called Mandilakkottil. In 1914 there was a partition among the members of the 'tarwad', and Kunhikutti Kolpad and her childre...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarathnammal Vs. D. Veeraraghavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1008
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an originating summons in regard to the construction of a settlement deed dated 4-7-1931 and for alternative reliefs.2. The facts are: The house bearing door No. 2/19, Krishnappa Chetti Street, Chintadripet, Madras, belonged absolutely to Deivasigamani Mudaliar and Lakshmi Animal. This couple had an only son by name Veeraraghava Mudaliar and they asked for the hand of Nagarathnammal, the applicant before me, for marriage as the second wife of the said Veerararaghava Mudaliar. The parents of that Nagarathnammal insisted upon a pre-nuptial settlement. Therefore, Deivasigamani Mudaliar and his wife executed a settlement deed on 4-7-1931.3. The relevant portion of the said settlement deed runs as follows:'Whereas we had asked you Nagarathnammal aforesaid to be given in marriage as his second wife to our only son Veeraraghava Mudaliar and whereas your father said that he would give you in marriage if a house was given to you under a document, as whereas we have ...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Krishnamurthy, Director, Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad738; (1954)IMLJ542
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Subba Rao J. on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant before us for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chepauk, Madras, dated 15-4-1952 and to quash the said order. The appellant was elected director of the Triplicane Urban Co-operative Society Ltd., in or about February 1951. On 24-1-1952, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies addressed a letter to the President of the society stating that it had bean brought to his notice that the appellant was a near relation of a clerk or inspector of the society namely one V. R. Rajagopala Aiyar and that under Rule 27 (1) (e) and Rule 27 (2) (e) of the rules framed under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, he had ceased to hold office, and called upon the president to arrange to get another person elected in place of the appellant.There was correspondenc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venugopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad901
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The first of these petitions is by one Venugopal, who has been charged by the state before the Third Presidency Magistrate, under Section 49A, Madras City Police Act, for the alleged offence of keeping for sale a bi-weekly called 'the Original Vel Sporting News' printed and published at Original Vel Printing Work, Madras-1, and who prays that this court may be pleased to call for the records in the said C. C. No. 5429 of 1953 on the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras and quash the said proceedings. In the next three revision cases, the petitioners were charged for a similar offence before the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court, Egmore, in C. C. Nos. 1867, 1863 & 1869 of 1953 & they were convicted under the said Section 49A, City Police Act & sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 each. These petitioners have now preferred revision petitions against the convictions and sentences by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, who de...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Sultan Ahmed Rowther and ors. Vs. the State of Madras, Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad949; (1954)IIMLJ93
Rajagopalan, J.1.The question for determination in each of these petitions is whether the flssessee is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 2(i), Madras General Sales Tax Act 9 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as such entitled to exclude from his turnover the proceeds of the sales of arecanut in the assessment year, that is, whether they were gales by a dealer of 'agricultural or horticultural produce grown on land in which he had interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise.'2. That the assessee was a dealer as defined by the Act was never in dispute. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal, which differed from the departmental authorities on that point, was that the cured arecanut sold by the assessee was agricultural or horiticultural produce. The correctness of that finding was not challenged, and the arguments before us proceeded on the assumption, that the arecanut sold by the assessee was horticultural produce within the mea...
Tag this Judgment!N.P.R. Subbiah Ambalam Vs. S.S.P. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad945
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. In our opinion, this appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. The defendant who is the appellant before us claims under a purchase in court auction in execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by the landholder. The defendant was an assignee of that decree. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims under a purchase from the original pattadar. Though the defendant's purchase was long after the plaintiff's purchase, the contention on behalf of the appellant was that the rent being a first charge on the holding under the Estates Land Act, as his purchase was in execution of a rent decree in the Revenue Court, as purchaser therein, he was entitled to the property in preference to the plaintiff who was a purchaser from the pattadar. The learned Judge, Panchapagesa Sastri J. refused to accept this contention. He held, following the decisions in -- 'Vyraperumal Mudaliar v. Alagappa Maniagarar', AIR 1932 Mad 189 (A), --'Venkatalakshmana Garu v. Nenda Seettayya',...
Tag this Judgment!Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants Vs. A. Krishnamurthi, Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad71
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 21, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, respecting the conduct of a Chartered Accountant, Mr. A. Krishnamurthi, one of the partners of a firm of Chartered Accountants, Messrs. Rowe and Pal. It arises out of a complaint filed by the Government of Madras in the following circumstances:2. Messrs. Rowe and Pal were appointed by the Government as Inspectors to Investigate the affairs of two Companies, viz., Sandur Tobacco Company Ltd. and the Sandur Plantations Ltd., Sandur, and to report thereon. It is common ground that after entering on their office as Inspectors, one of the partners, namely, the respondent entered into a private arrangement with the Directors and Managing Agents of the company, to bring about a compromise between different groups of creditors and the companies, for which services a separate remuneration was fixed. Admittedly, neither the respondent nor the firm obtained the permission of the Government to undertake this ...
Tag this Judgment!Presidency Talkies Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director, V.L. Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad872; [1954]25ITR447(Mad)
ORDER1. These petitions are directed against the Income-tax Officer for a writ of prohibition preventing him from proceeding further with the proceedings initiated by him under Section 34 of Income-tax Act.2. The first complaint of the petitioner is that the reasons which satisfied the Commissioner for sanctioning the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act were not communicated to him, and, therefore, the proceedings are void.The scheme of Section 34 of the Act is that, if the conditions of the main section are satisfied, a notice has to be issued to the assessee containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of 3. 22. But before issuing the notice, the proviso requires that the officer should record his reasons for initiating action under Section 34 and obtain the sanction of the Commissioner who must be satisfied that the action under Section 34 was justified. There is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Ravula Subbarao and ors. Vs. Commr. I.T., Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad39; [1955]27ITR164(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. These are applications to issue writs of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. By virtue of the rule-making power vested in the Appellate - Tribunal under Section 5-A, Sub-clause (8), Rule 24 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 was made; and it provides:'Where on the day fixed for hearing or any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or may hear it ex parte.'The point raised in these petitions is that this rule is 'ultra vires' and is opposed to Section 33, Sub-section (4), Income-tax Act. The rule-making power under Section 5-A, Sub-clause (8) is of course subject to the provisions of the Act, and the scope of the power is to regulate the procedure of the Appellate Tribunal and the procedure of Benches of the Tribunal in all matters arising out of the dischar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »