Chennai Court March 1954 Judgments
P.V. Subba Raja Vs. S.S. Narayana Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1074
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and for taking accounts of the partnership.The partnership was run under the style of P. V. Suppa Raja and Co. at Srivilliputtur for the purpose of procurement of foodgrains as Government's whole-sale agents in Malli, Nathampatti and Watrap firkas of Srivilliputtur talut and for importing foodgrains into Srivilliputtur taluk and for importing foodgrains toto Srivilliputtur as Government's recognised quota holders and for running relief shop. The partners of the business were the plaintiffs and the first defendant and the partnership agreement is dated 7-5-1947. The suit was resisted by the first defendant mainly on the ground that the partnership in question is prohibited under law and being opposed to public policy and hence the suit for dissolution of partnership and for taking of accounts was not maintainable. This contention of the first defendant was not accepted by both the lower Courts and...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Rajagopalan Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1155
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff was a member of the Indian Civil Service, who joined duty at Madras in October 1837. He was Sub-Collector and Joint Magistrate at Dindigul and on 2-6-1947, he went on leave. While on leave at Madras, he received a Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Home Department, dated 18-6-1947, Ex. P-2, asking him to communicate within ten days of the receipt of the letter whether he wished to continue in service of the Government in view of the withdrawal of the Secretary of State's control over His Majesty's services consequent on the intention to transfer power from the British Government to Indian hands, or whether he desired to retire from service. He sent a reply to the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of India, with a copy of the same to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras, on 2-7-1947, Ex. P-3, expressing his desire to continue to serve the Madras Government.2. On 9-8-1947, he received a demi-official communication f...
Tag this Judgment!Sasivarnam Vs. S. Gnanasundari Kamalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1018
1. This matter comes before us under Section 17, Indian Divorce Act 4 of 1869 for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge of Madurai.2. The husband of the first respondent is the petitioner, and he claimed in the petition dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground, that she was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. The husband is a Hindu and the wife is a Christian. Their marriage was solemnised according to Christian rites on 22-8-1934 at Madurai, and Ex. A. 1 is the marriage certificate. They lived at Calicut for three years after the marriage and there was no trouble till 1938. In 1938 the husband saw the wife writing a letter to one Gnanamuthu Isac. He caught hold of the letter, which is dated 27-2-1938, Ex. A. 2. Gnanamuthu Isac was found in the house of the petitioner in July 1938, when he went away to his office and returned suddenly to his house. When asked to explain his presence, the wife could not give a satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Guruvayur Devaswom Trustees T.M. Krishnan Nambudiripad and anr. Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1954
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ524
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed against the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode in O.S. No. 76 of 1952.2. The facts are: The plaintiff Kuttikrishna Menon was employed in the Guruvayur Devaswom of which the present hereditary trustees are defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff's services were terminated with effect from 10th July, 1952. The plaintiff then rushed to Court with this suit in order to nullify this order and also for recovery of damages contending that the order terminating his services was illegal, void and inoperative and that he was not given an opportunity to explain the charges against him, if any, before removal from service. The contention of the defendants was that this suit was impliedly barred by reason of Sections 49 and 93 of the Madras Act XIX of 1951 read with Section 9, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge relying upon Kallalagar Devasthanam v. Thirumala Nambigal (1943) 1 M.L.J. 496 and Secretary of State ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. M.N. Govindaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1023
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This criminal revision raises an important question of privilege claimed by a witness under Section 125, Evidence Act. The witness who claims the privilege is P. W. 76 in the lower Court. He, as the Circle Inspector of Police at Ami, was investigating a case under Prohibition Act. When examined as P. W. 76 he filed the account boots of some of the accused which were exhibited as Exs. P. 187, P. 188 and P. 195. In the course of investigation he seized the above account books. In cross-examination a question was asked as to wherefrom-or from whom these account books were seized.Instead of merely giving the name of the person from whom these account books were seized, the Circle Inspector of Police choss to give the answer that the 'Exhibits were got from my informant'. The next question was 'What is the name of the person from whom the books were seized?' Immediately an objection was raised by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that under Section 125, Evidence Ac...
Tag this Judgment!K. Arumugham Naicker and anr. Vs. Tiruvalluva Nainar Temple by Its Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad985
1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Section 41, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.The respondent, Sri Tiruvalluva Nainar temple, leased a certain vacant land to the petitioners for agricultural purposes. They erected certain huts on the land. The landholder i.e., the respondent terminated the tenancy and, in order to recover possession of the property, applied under Section 41. Presidency Small Cause Courts Act for delivery of possession of the property. Of the petitioners, the first petitioner admitted the claim of the temple for possession of the property and the second petitioner was ex parte.The application was allowed and the bailiff was directed to deliver possession of the property to the respondent. When the bailiff went to deliver possession of the property, he found there were four huts put up by the petitioners on the land and, as there was no order directing removal of the huts, he declined to remove them and deliv...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chandramouleswara Oil Co., Kurnool and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad983; (1954)IIMLJ187
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. These two applications are for revising the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, and they have come up for admission.2. The assessees are registered manufacturers of groundnut oil. They purchased groundnuts and extracted oil from them but sold the oil outside the State, i.e., in Bombay. They were taxed on the turnover of the purchase price. They now claim that, as the oil was sold outside the State, and as that sale is exempted from taxation under Article 286 of the Constitution, they are entitled to claim a rebate of the tax they paid on the purchase turnover in respect of the groundnuts from which they extracted the oil, under Rule 18 (2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Turnover and Assessment rules. This contention was not accepted by the Tribunal. We think that the conclusion reaches by the Tribunal is correct, and there is no ground for admitting these revision petitions.Under the Madias General Sales-tax Act, the groundmits are taxable on the purchase turnov...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras, by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad251; (1954)IIMLJ589
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. There is no substance in this revision petition. The first point relates to the question whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The Tribunal in the circumstances set out in para. 4 of the Judgment considered that it is a fit case, where they should exercise their discretion in excusing the delay in filing, the appeal. That discretion cannot be interfered with.2. The second objection raised was, the Tribunal had no Jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. For the reasons given in para, 6 of the judgment, we agree with the Tribunal and the appeal was competent,3. The third and the last point is the manner in which the deduction is to be worked out under Rule 18(2) of the Turnover Rules, read with Rule 5 (1) (k). The language of Rule 18(2) does not present any, difficulty. It says: 'Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under Clause (k) of Rule 5(1) equal to the value of the groundnut and/or kernel purchased and converted by h...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad884; (1954)IIMLJ188
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. There are two items of disputed turnover in this case, which relate to assessment for the year 1949-50, A sum of Rs. 41,426-13-4 represents the value of the goods which were transferred to the branches outside the State and were sold by the assessee outside the State. They are undoubtedly not subject to any tax, and that is the view that was taken by the Appellate Tribunal, which must be upheld.2. The remaining turnover of Rs. 2,85,931-7-1 represents the sale proceeds of agricultural tractors which the assessee sold in the State. The contention of the assessee, which was upheld by the Tribunal is that he was liable to pay tax at the rate of 3 pies per rupee as provided in Section 3(1)(b) of the General Sales-tax Act, while the Government contends that the agricultural tractor is a 'motor vehicle' and therefore the assessee is liable to pay an extra six pies as provided in Section 3(2) (i) of the Act. Under a G. O. dated 13-9-1949 the Government exempted altoget...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswamy Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1006
Govinda Menon J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to transportation for life toy the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division, for causing the death of his brother's son, Lakshmana Konar, by hitting him on the head with a heavy yoke, which fractured and splintered the skull into 15 pieces, causing immediate and instantaneous death.It is unnecessary to restate the reasons which impelled the appellant to commit this crime, for the entire story is recited with enough particularity of detail in the confession, Ex. P. 2, which the appellant made before the Tahsildar Magistrate of Perambalur. If that document is accepted, there is no doubt about the guilt of the appellant.But this confession was retracted by the appellant not only before the committal court but in the Sessions Court also, in both of which Courts the appellant denied having anything to do with the murder of his nephew, LakshmanaKonar. In such circumstances, it behaves on us to find out whether the confession has been...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »