Chennai Court July 1954 Judgments
Dhirajlal Vithalji Vs. Dy. Custodian of Evacuee Property, South Kanara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad75
Rajamannar, C.J.1. W. P. 675 of 1952; This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property at Mangalore dated 19-3-1950 and the order on appeal therefrom by the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 9-5-1952 may be quashed on the ground that Section 40, Administration of Evacuee Property Act, (Act No. 31 of 1950), corresponding to Section 38, Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, (27 of 1949) is void under Article 13 of the Constitution.2. On 24-5-1948, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the power of attorney agent of one Abdul Shukoor Thayab conveying property in Mangalore (plot of land and house No. 106 Kasba Bazar) for a consideration of Rs. 20000. On 18-3-1950, the vendor, Abdul Shukoor, was declared an evacuee, and his properties were declared evacuee properties. Ordinance 27 of 1949 came into force on or about 18-10-1949. Section 38(1) of the Ordinance ran as follows:'N...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. E.P. Varkey and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad541; 1955CriLJ1266
Somasundaram, J.1. These are a batch of appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent in each case by the Sessions Judge of South Malabar. All these cases relate to offences under the Sales-tax Act and all the respondents reside out of the State of Madras. The case for the prosecution is that the respondents were doing business and effecting sales of their respective goods in Fort Cochin which is within the State of Madras and therefore they are liable to pay sales-tax to the Madras State.Evidence was let in to show that the goods were delivered in Fort Cochin and the buyers paid the prices for the same in Fort Cochin. The learned Sessions Judge finds this in para 5 of his judgment in C. A. No. 490 of 1953. He also finds that this finding, viz., that the delivery of the goods was made in Fort Cochin and that the price was paid in Fort Cochin has not been challenged. But he proceeds further to find out where the contract of sale was entered into, whether it was with...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Triplicane Division, Mount Road, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1144
Balakrishna Aiyab, J. 1. The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, la a social and recreational association with a strength of some twelve hundred members or more. It was founded in 1873. In 1934 it was incorporated under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Where people foregather there is often a demand for refreshments and the Club supplies these at certain standard rates previously approved of. On the total amount of the bills in respect of the refreshments supplied to the members the State of Madras has been charging sales tax under Section 3 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1939. On 22nd August 1949 the Secretary of the Club wrote to the Government requesting them to exempt the sale of refreshments by the Club to its members from liability to pay sales tax. By an order dated 21-9-1949 the Government negatived the request. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the Honorary Secretary of the Club it is stated:'The amount till now paid by the club to the State of Madras is Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pl. Pn. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. P.L.P.N. Kumarappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad144
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O. S. No. 29 of 1947.2. The facts of this case have been fully set out In the Judgment of the Lower Court and need not be recapitulated because this appeal is confined only to E Schedule moneys in regard to which the controversy is whether they were advanced by the plaintiff as deposits or loans which should be repaid only at the time of partition under an agreement pleaded or custom sought to be made out or under the general principles of Hindu law as set out in two passages from Mayne and Raghavachari's Hindu Law and the further question is whether recovery of these amounts is barred by limitation under Article 107, Limitation Act.3. The E Schedule consists of three Sub-schedules (a), (b) and (e) and the learned Subordinate Judge has given the following findings regarding them.4. In regard to Schedule E (a) items 1 to 7, the learned Subordinate Judge states tha...
Tag this Judgment!Akkirath Mundanat Manakkal Thuppan Nambudiri Vs. A.P. Kutti Sankara Me ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad35
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Krishna-swami Nayudu J. dismissing an application filedby the appellant under Section 120, Companies Act, in the following circumstances.2. On 26-6-1950 the Malavalee Bank Ltd., exe-cuted and registered a deed of sub-mortgage ofsome of the securities held by the Bank in favourof the appellant to secure a sum of Rs. 10,000,advanced by the appellant to the Bank. The loanwas repayable within six months. On 4-7-1950 themanaging director of the Bank forwarded to theRegistrar of Joint Stock Companies particularsof the mortgage as prescribed in a form providedfor the purpose, but he did not send either theinstrument of mortgage or a copy thereof verifiedin the prescribed manner.The Registrar acknowledged receipt of the parti-culars and called upon the managing director tofile the instrument or a copy of the same. TheBank replied to the Registrar on 13-7-1950 thatthey had not received a copy of the mortgagedeed and that as soon as it wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.S. Krishna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad532
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These arc applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court on a reference made by the Third 'presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras in a batch of four cases before him relating to offences under the Madras Prohibition Act. Several questions were raised in the reference, but this court confined itself to such questions as may be said to reasonably arise in the said cases. This was due to the fact that the reference was made, before any evidence had been taken. Certain sections of the Madras Prohibition Act were impugned as being invalid on one ground or the other, and this court decided that none of the provisions so impugned was void.2. These applications are under Article 132(1) and Article 134(I)(c) of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the Explanation to Article 132, and the observations of the Supreme Court in -- 'Election Commission, India v. Venkata Rao', : [1953]4SCR1144 (A), and contended th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad548; 1955CriLJ1267; (1954)IIMLJ765
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. The facts of the case are clear. In the morning of 14-9-1953 the accused took out a lorry along Brodics Road. Now, there was no fluid in the brake system of the lorry with the result that the foot-brake was totally ineffective and the hand-brake only nominally effective. When the accused came to a bridge near the fish farm on Brodics Road, a bus M.S.P. 4583 was coming from the opposite direction. There was no room for . both the vehicles on the bridge. The accused tried to stop but was unable to do so owing to the defective condition of the brakes. To avoid crashing into the bus the accused swerved to a side and his lorry was stopped by the parapet wall of the bridge. Now, an old man was then walking over the bridge and he was crushed between the parapet wall and the lorry of the accused and killed. On these facts the Third Presidency Magistrate convicted the accused under Section. 304-A, I. P. C. and under Sections 116 and 121, Motor Vehicles Act. In respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Kandaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad547
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. This is judgment-debtor's appeal against an order by the learned District Judge of North Arcot allowing the execution of the decree in O. S. No. 292 of 1930 to proceed. To appreciate the point that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to state a few of the facts in the protracted history of this litigation. The respondent obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 292 of 1930 on the file of the 'Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvamamalai, on 10-4-1930. Pending the suit, the decree-holder had obtained an attachment before judgment which was effected on 9-4-1930. But even before this date, on 4-4-1930, the judgment-debtor had filed I. P. No. 20 of 1930' for his own adjudication and this was ordered on 11-9-1930. On 11-4-1930, that is, after the institution of the insolvency proceedings, but before the adjudication, the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 391 of 1930 for executing the decree which bet had obtained. However, on the appli...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.K. Venkataperumal Naidu Vs. the Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Board, Thi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1955Mad717
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. It is a misnomer to call the amount of Rs. 500, deposited by the plaintiff for the due performance of the contract as earnest money. There is no question of any vendor or purchaser in the case. What the plaintiff agreed with the defendant was that he would construct a bus stand on a land belonging to him and after doing so lease out the building to the Panchayat Board on a rent of Rs. 200 per year. After some procrastination it was found that the plaintiff did not perform the original contract. Later on he wrote to the Panchayat Board stating that for the due performance of the contract he would deposit a sum of Rs. 500. Even in the correspondence which followed this agreement, there is nothing to shoy that in case the plaintiff did not build the bus stand within the time allowed to him the amount of Rs. 500 paid by him would be forfeited.2. In -- 'Chiranjit Sing v. Har Swamp AIR 1926 PC 1 (A), Lord Shaw lays down,'Earnest money is part of the purchase price wh...
Tag this Judgment!Erimmal Ebrahim Hajee Vs. Collector of Malabar at Kozhikode and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Mad1091; [1954]26ITR509(Mad)
Mack, J. 1. Petitioner Ebrahim Hajee, admittedly an old man of about seventy, has applied by way of awrit of 'habeas corpus' for his release from the Central Jail, Cannanore, to which he was committed on 1-6-1954 on a warrant of arrest issued by the Collector of Malabar under Section 48, Madras Revenue Recovery Act, in respect of an income-tax arrear of Rs. 61,668. The warrant under which the petitioner was arrested by the Tahsildar is in accordance with Section 48 and recites that the Collector had reason to believe that Ebrahim Hajee is wilfully withholding payment of these arrears and charges and has been guilty of fraudulent conduct to evade payment of them. Ebrahim Hajee was given no hearing or any opportunity to show cause against the issue of the warrant. Nor does Section 48, Revenue Recovery Act, provide for any procedure by which a defaulter imprisoned under that section can make any representation or file any appeal. 2. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector, who h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »