Chennai Court March 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
A.R. Krishna Iyer and anr. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC346(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is, whether the proviso to Section 3(1 )(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), offends Article 14 of the Constitution and is therefore, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.2. The first petitioner is the lessee of a restaurant, the Canteens Ltd., and he is a 'dealer' as denned in the Act, a dealer who sells articles of food and drink in a restaurant. The second petitioner, the Madras Hotels Association, is an association of similar dealers in articles of food and drink.3. In the assessment year 1952-1953, the first petitioner was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 94,322-6-3, and under the proviso to Section 3(1) (b) of the Act, he was assessed to sales tax at the rate of 4 1/2 pies in the rupee on that turnover. The assessment was completed by the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,...
A.R. Krishna Iyer and anr. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ179
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The only question that arises lor consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is, whether the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act (Act IX of 1939) (herein after referred to as the Act), offends Article 14 of the Constitution and is, therefore, void and unenforceable against the petitioners.2. The first petitioner is the lessee of a restaurant, the Canteens Ltd., and he is a 'dealer' as defined in the Act, a dealer who sells articles of food and drink in a restaurant. The second petitioner, the Madras Hotels Association is an association of similar dealers in articles of food and drink.3. In the assessment year, 1952-1953, the first petitioner was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 94322-6-3, and under the proviso to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, he was assessed to sales-tax at the rate of Rs. 0-0-4 1/2 the rupee on that turn-over. The assessment was completed by the assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Off...
N.S. Sreenivasa Rao Vs. G.M. Abdul Rahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad618; (1956)2MLJ189
Govinda Menon, J.1. The question that arises in this Civil Revision Petition is one regarding the applicability of Section 13 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act IV of 1938). As it is an important one, the matter has come up for decision before the Bench.2. On 2nd April, 1944, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 200 agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent, per annum. On I3ih March, 1947, there was a payment of Rs. 70 endorsed on the promissory note, and expressly stated to be towards the interest due. Similarly on 8th June, 1949, and her payment of Rs. 30 towards the interest was made, and there were further payments of Rs. 35 on 23rd February, 1950 and Rs. 50 on 1st September, 1952, towards interest as such. Appropriating these payments towards interest, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 233-5-0 which according to him constituted the principal and balance of interest at the contract rate.3. The contention of t...
Orikkalappat Kannasseri Demodara Menon Vs. Orikkalappat Kannasseri Bha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ311
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant and the short point for determination in this appeal is whether the interest acquired under two documents Exhibit B-11 which is a registration copy of the original of a gift deed, dated 18th December, 1914, and another gift deed of 1919 dealing with items 1 and 2 of plaint A Schedule is for the tavazhi or for the individual donees specified in the two documents. The trial Court took the view that it was not for the tavazhi but in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge took the contrary view.2. Under Exhibit B-11 the father of the first plaintiff, one Gopala Menon and his sister, Kunhikutti Amma, who had no issue made a gift of item 1 to Lakshmi Amma, the wife of Gopala Menon and her four children, the second defendant, the first plaintiff, and defendants 1 and 10, who alone were born then. Under the second document, the gift was by Kunhikutti Amma alone of item 2 and some other items to the same Lakshmi Amma and her children ...
Manorama Bai Vs. Rama Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad269
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O. S. No. 118 of 1950. 2. The facts are :--Ramakrishnaya, a retired District Registrar, and Ananda Rao, a retired Sub-Assistant Surgeon, were brothers governed by the Mitakshara Law. Both had divided themselves from the other members of the family and from each other. In 1934 Ramakrishnaya, the retired District Registrar, owned a house and garden and also some money and investment (mentioned in schedule A of the plaint) and Ananda Rao owned immovable properties described in item 2 of the plaint B schedule which he had got at partition and items 1 and 3 to 6 therein which were his self-acquisitions, and also large investments of moneys of his own. It is common ground that Ananda Rao was a rich brother and Ramakrishnaya was a poor brother. This Ramakrishnaya was childless though he had married twice. His childless second wife Radhamma alias Kaveri is even now a...
Medai Dalavoi K. Thirumalaiappa and ors. Vs. Medai Dalavoi T. Kumarasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ161
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These two applications are taken out by the petitioners who are the sons of the respondent for certain directions in C.M.A. No. 123 of 1955 on the file of this Court, that being an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in I.A. No. 124 of 1955 in O.S. No. 25 of 1956 appointing a receiver. C.M.P. No. 5439 of 1955 is for an order to the effect that the respondent is liable to have his C.M.A. dismissed for want of prosecution until he purges himself of the contempt of Court which he is alleged to have committed under the following circumstances. The other application C.M.P. No. 5440 of 1955, is for the removal of the respondent from the receivership of one of the properties of which he was appointed receiver by this Court. The result of these applications would depend upon the petitioners establishing the charge which they have laid against the respondent that he has committed contempt of Court.2. O.S. No. 25 of 1955 is a suit for pa...
Pichuratnam Ayyar Vs. A. Muthuratnam Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ286
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The only question that requires to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the defendants are entitled to relief under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938. The suit is on hypothecation bond and the interest stipulated was 8 per cent, per annum, compound interest. The plaintiff claims exemption under Section 4(d) of the Act which saysthat the provisions of the Act will not affect any debt contracted on the security of house property alone in a municipality, a cantonment, or a panchayat which was a union before the 26th August, 1930.The property is situated within the limits of the Union of Ariyalur and the question is whether the property is 'house property'. The property in question consists-of a brick-built house in Survey Number 207 and the back portion of it is on Survey No. 201, but both are adjacent to each other being separated by a compound wall. The property is probably situated in a corner at the junction of two streets; the. front ...
Arunachalam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Murugappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad629; (1956)2MLJ372
Govinda Menon, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in this appeal which arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,100-6-0 on foot of a deposit made in Burma payable in Rangoon under Exhibits B-1 and A-1. The Lower Court has held that the suit is maintainable in the Madras State and decreed the same with interest at certain rates. Aggrieved by that decision, the defendants have come up here.2. The main question that has been argued by Mr. Krishna Rao, for the appellants, is that the Indian Courts have no jurisdiction, especially because under Exhibit A-1, the principal sum together with interst at the Rangoon nadappu rate less one-sixteenth was payable at Rangoon and that being the case and the situs of the debt being in a foreign country, municipal Courts here have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The origin of ' the debt is a deposit at Paungde in Burma on 17th January, 1928, when India and Burma formed part of the British Empire. But later on, as is well-known, Bu...
State of Madras (Collector of Coimbatore) Vs. Rajagopala Ayyar (C.S.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad613; (1956)IILLJ169Mad
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in W.P. No. 844 of 1952. That petition was filed by the respondent for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government dated 7 June 1951 dismissing him from service. The petitioner joined service of Government in the Revenue department about thirty years ago and he was a permanent member of that department in the Coimbatore district. He was stationary sub-magistrate, Pollachi, from 14 March to 23 June 1949. As such he was engaged in the trial of a case of wrongful confinement and extortion. Two charges were framed against him and an enquiry was directed to be made by the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The two charges were:(1) that he demanded a sum of 10,000 as a bribe for acquitting the accused in the case before him, and (2) that he demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs. 500 each from one Gopalaswami Gounder promising to convict the accuse...
State of Madras Represented by Collector of Coimbatore and anr. Vs. C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1330
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. in W. P. No. 844 of 1952. That petition was filed by the respondent for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government dated 7-6-1951 dismissing him from service. The petitioner joined service of Government in the Revenue department about 30 years ago and he was a permanent member of that department in the Coimbatore district.He was Stationary Sub Magistrate, Pollachi, from 14th March to 23rd June 1949. As such he was engaged in the trial of a case of wrongful confinement and extortion. Two charges were framed against him and an enquiry was directed to be made by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The two charges were (1) that he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as a bribe for acquitting the accused in the case before him, and (2) that he demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs. 500 each from one Gopalaswami Gounder promising to convict the accused concerne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »