Chennai Court April 1954 Judgments
Registrar of Companies, Bombay Vs. P.M. Hegde
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1080
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This case has been referred to us under the Chartered Accountants Act. 1949. It arises out of a complaint dated 4-4-1951 made by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, against the respondent, a chartered Accountant to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, that as the Auditor of the Rural Bank of India Ltd., Karwar, he was guilty of professional misconduct. On receipt of the complaint, the Secretary to the Council forwarded a copy of it to the respondent who filed a written statement on 7-5-1951. There was an inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee. The Committee reported that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence in the discharge of his duties. The findings of the Council, on a consideration of the report of the Disciplinary Committee, are as follows:'Shri P. M. Hegde had failed to discharge his duty to the share-holders:-- (1) by not verifying the cash on hand at the head office on the date of the balance sheet in each of the years in q...
Tag this Judgment!T.K.P. Rajagopala Chettiar and ors. Vs. A.P.S. Palani Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1101; (1954)IIMLJ639
1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the first Additional Judge of the City Civil Court. It came on for hearing before Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. and he has referred the appeal for decision by a Full Bench, in view of a conflict between certain Bench decisions of this Court,2.The facts of the case are not the subject matter of controversy and the only question is whether the suit, which has been decreed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, is maintainable. Five persons, Annamalai Chetti, Palani Chetti, Rajagopala Chetti, Rajabathar Chetti and Ellappa Chetti, became partners in a Mandi business, which was carried on at Vellore under the name and style of "T. K. M. A. Rajabathar Chetty, Palani Chetti and Company". For the purpose of the business, Annamalai Chetti brought into the partnership funds belonging to the joint family of which he was the manager. Annamalai and one of his brothers, Parthasarathi appear to have got themselves divided from their, other copartner...
Tag this Judgment!P.J. Francis Vs. P.J. Verghese and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ288
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act against the grant of letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed of one Rev. Father Antony Paliyoor alias Antony Kathanar who died at Trichur on 14th March, 1950, in favour of the petitioner in the lower Court, P.J. Verghese.2. The application was made before the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat for the grant of letters of administration. The same was opposed by a number of respondents of whom the second respondent, the appellant before us, in his counter, dated 23rd July, 1951, pleaded that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. Various other points were raised such as the genuineness of the will, his testamentary capacity and other matters. The learned Subordinate Judge holding that the will is genuine and finding the points raised by the respondent before him against the respondent directed that letters of administration a...
Tag this Judgment!Registrar of Companies Vs. P.M. Hegde
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1634
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This case has been referred to us under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. It arises out of a complaint dated 4-4-1951 made by the Registrar of Companies, Bombay, against the respondent, a chartered Accountant to the Council of the Institute of chartered Accountants of India, that as the Auditor of the Rural Bank of India Ltd., Karwar, he was guilty of professional misconduct. On receipt of the complaint, the Secretary to the Council forwarded a copy of it to the respondent who filed a written statement on 7-5-1951. There was an inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee. The Committee reported that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence in the discharge of his duties. The findings of the Council, on a consideration of the report of the Disciplinary Committee, are as follows : Shri P. M. Hegde had failed to discharge his duty to the share-holders :(1) by not verifying the cash on hand at the head office on the date of the balance sheet in each of the years in que...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbiah Mooppanar Vs. S.S. Venkatarama Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad265; (1954)IIMLJ599
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. The material facts in this revision petition are not in dispute. Defendants 1 to 3 are usufructuary mortgagees of the plaint-schedule, property. The fourth defendant is the-mort-gagor. The fourth defendant sold the same to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 18000 under a registered sale deed dated 10-2-1947. Under the sale deed, a sum of Rs. 3500 was reserved with the plaintiff to be paid to the mortgagees. Accordingly he paid the amount to the mortgagees on 10-4-1947. The mortgagees though they were in pos-session during faslls 1355 and 1356 did not pay to the zamindar the cist for 1355 and 1356. After the plaintiff took possession of the properties he paid on 4-9-1949 a sum of Rs. '165-15-9 to the zamindar being, the arrears of cist due In respect of the othi for faslis 1355 and 1356. After paying the amount to the Zamindar, he filed S. C. 8. No. 789 of. 1951 on the file of the court of the District Mutislf; Ambasamudram, for the recovery of the said amount from def...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa thevar Vs. Vairavan Servaigaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad258
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in these two appeals. He instituted two suits O. S. Nos. 512 and 513 of 1947 in the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai, to set aside a decree dated 7-3-1946, passed in M. A. No. 151 of 1946 on the file of the Deputy Collector's Court, Pattukottai, on the ground of alleged fraud in service by the Revenue Inspector. These suits were transferred from the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai to the District Munsif's Court, Mannargudi, on grounds of administrative convenience by the District Judge, West Tanjore, and were numbered O. S. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1949 respectively. The suits were contested.2. When the suits were taken up for hearing on 15-3-1949, the plaintiff presented an application I. A. No. 160 of 1949 for an adjournment. By an order passed by the learned District Munsif, the adjournment was refused on the ground that it was bereft of bona fides and the petition for adjournment was dismissed with costs and whe...
Tag this Judgment!Kurivalli Lingayya Setty Vs. Sitharam Agarwala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad595
ORDERSubba Rao, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the court of the. Subordinate Judge of Bellary striking out defendant 2 on the ground that he was improperly joined as a party to the suit.2. The facts according to the plaintiff, that gave rise to the cause of action against the defendants, may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is a merchant doing business in dhal and other commodities at Adoni. Defendant 1 posing himself as a representative of Maheswari Mills Moria (Madhya Bharat) entered into a contract with him to sell 4 waggons of gram and dhal. At the time of the contract, he produced forged licences and delivered a letter alleged to have been written by Maheswari Mills authorising him to collect the money from the purchasers in respect of the railway waggons for which railway receipts were to be delivered.Believing these representations, the plaintiff paid Rs. 7000 to defendant 1 and obtained an assignment of four documents styled as railway receipts covering these four...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.R.M. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1126; (1954)IIMLJ400
ORDER1. By an order of the learned Chief Justice, this matter was referred to this Bench under Section 5, Court-fees Act, for determination of the proper court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal presented by the plaintiff against the decree dismissing his suit, C. S. No. 311 of 1951.2. The suit relates to the estate belonging to the S. RM. AR. family. The plaintiff, Sathappa Chettiar, the son of one Subbiah Chettiar who, it was claimed, was the adopted son of Sathappa, the eldest brother of the defendant's fatherRamaswami. One Arunachala had three sons Sathappa, Veerappa and Ramaswami. Ramaswami's son is Ramanatha, the defendant in the action. Sathappa and Veerappa having predeceased, the entire family property devolved on Ramaswaml's branch and Ramanatha became the sole surviving coparcener, and he held the property.One Subbiah Chettiar, claiming to be the son, by adoption, of Sathappa by his widow Lakshmi Achi, in or about 1922, instituted suit O. S. No. 33 or 1930 on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!India Coffee and Tea Distributing Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1030
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected suits filed for a declaration that the assessments of sales-tax made on the plaintiffs are illegal and void.2. The facts are:- The plaintiffs Messrs. India Coffee and Tea Distributing Company Ltd., First Line Beach, Madras, are a firm of commission agents at Madras and other places. Their business consists of sales of tea in this State on behalf of the resident principals and foreign exports on behalf of non-resident principals. In these suits we are concerned only with the latter transactions, viz., foreign exports. The 'modus operand!' of the plaintiffs firm in regard to these foreign exports, is as follows: These commission agents have representatives at London and New York. These representatives enter into contracts with buyers for the supply of tea from particular tea estates and transmit their agreements to the commission agents. The buyers are enjoined to open invariably irrecoverable letters of credit with a bank at Madras. These commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Kalleti Munuswami Setti Vs. Muppirala Jagannadham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad266
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This revision petition arises in proceedings for the passing of a final decree in pursuance of a preliminary decree in a suit for redemption filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent applied to the Court below for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 609-8-4 as balance due for past mesne profits and fof determination of future mesne' profits. The only con-tention on behalf of the mortgagee who is the petitioner before me which merits any consideration is that the. respondent is not entitled to credit for the profits on the land from .7-9-1949, i.e., the date on which a notification was issued by the Government under Act 26 of 1948, taking over the estate, of which the suit mortgage concerns a part. The Contention was that as the respondent had no more interest in the property after the said date the petitioner was not liable to account for the profits of the property to the respondent on and from that date. This contention was not accepted by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »