Chennai Court August 1956 Judgments
G. Venkatesha Bhat and ors. Vs. Kamlapat Motilal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad201
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. 83 of 1952.2. The facts of this case have been fully set out in the judgment of the lower court and need not be recapitulated.3. The controversy between the parties in the lower court and here relates to the question of jurisdiction viz., whether the suit should be instituted in Mangalore as the plaintiffs contend or in Cawnpur as the defendants contend it should have been done.4. In order to understand this controversy the following relevant facts may be borne in mind. The plaintiffs are four merchants of whom two are conducting business at Mangalore, one is carrying on business at Cannanore and one is carrying on business at Tellicherry. The defendants consist of two partnership firms carrying on business at Cawnpur in the United Provinces dealing in sugar.5. On 5-1-1951 under Ex. B-1 the first plaintiff approached the first defendant requesting th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajappa and ors. Vs. Andalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad236
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of an order made by the learned City Civil Court Judge rejecting the applications of the petitioners made under Order 22, Rule 4, C. P. C. for bringing the sons, daughters and the widow of the deceased first defendant in the suits on record as his legal representatives. O. S. Nos. 51 of 1952, 1888 of 1951, 1898 of 1951 and 130 of 1952 were filed against the deceased first defendant by various plaintiffs claiming damages for injury done to them while they were travelling in the motor vehicle plied by the first defendant between Madras and Kalavai and by reason of an accident which occurred during their sojourn on 24-12-1950.2. The deceased first defendant was the owner of a fleet of buses carrying passengers for hire between Madras and Kalavai and other places under permits granted by the Government of Madras. One of his buses was plying for hire between the places mentioned above. The case of the plaintiffs was that the...
Tag this Judgment!Meenambigai Motor Service, Virudhunagar Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad298
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The Tribunal had jurisdiction. Theapplications preferred by respondents 1 to 4 on 27th April 1954 were during the tendency of an Industrial dispute of which the Industrial Tribunal had taken cognisance within the meaning of Section 83 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with' Sections 20 and 17A of that Act.2. What the Industrial Tribunal awarded was in enforcement of the statutory right vested in the retrenched workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5, by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. There was no error in the exercise of the jurisdiction. The termination of the services of these respondents on 3rd April 1054 was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25F. That the petitioner acted in good faith throughout and saw to it that these three workmen, respondents 2, 3 and 5 were given suitable employment by the Kodaikana Motor Union to which the petitioner had sold the buses, did not divest these workmen of the statutory rights vested in them by Section 25F. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Jaipur Ltd. Vs. P.G. Davey and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad353
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Bank of Jaipur Ltd., the garnishee second respondent in E. P. No. 3057 Of 1953 in S. C. S. No. 686 of 1953 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, against an order of a Bench of the court of Small Causes setting aside the order of the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, In M. p. No 1984 of 1953, dated 23-10-1953, and allowing a New Trial Application filed by the decree-holder, P. O. Davey. The facts are briefly these:2. The Bank of Jaipur was served with a garnishee notice by the decree-holder in E. P. Wo. 2293 of 1963 prohibiting them from paying to the judgment-debtor, Annamalai Mudaliar, a sum of Rs. 1575-6-0 said to be due by the garnishee to the judgment-debtor. That notice was duly served on the bank, but on that day the agent of the Bank was absent, and an accountant, who was in charge, received the notice but did not make a note of the date of the hearing, with the consequence that the garnished failed to app...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K. Swami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad379
1. These appeals are against the conviction and sentence of the two appellants at the Fourth Criminal Sessions, 1955, the 2nd accused being the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1956 and the first accused being the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 1956. Leave to appeal was granted under Section 411-A (1) (a) and (b), Criminal P. C., by this Court.2. The first accused Raghavan was charged under Sections 419 and 467, I. P. C., for having cheated one Pushparaj, a postman attached to the Saida-pet post office, by pretending to be one Krishnan and inducing the said Pushparaj to deliver to him Rs. 25 covered by T. M. O. No. 2637 dated 23-12-1854 intended for the said Krishnan and in the course of the same transaction for having forged the receipt and acknowledgment in the said T. M. O.The second accused K. K. Swami was charged with having abetted the commission of the said offence and therefore committed offences punishable under Sections 419 and 457 read with Section 114, I. P. C...
Tag this Judgment!Medai Dalavoi T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar Vs. Medai Dalavoi Rajammal Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ211
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Dalavoi Kumaraswam Mudaliar against the order of Ramaswami, J., in A.A.O. No. 83 of 1955, reversing the order of the District Judge of Tirunelveli, dismissing O.P. No. 19 of 1954, filed by his wife Rajammal alias Valliammal, for making her the guardian of the person of her two minor sons, Shanmughanatha Mudaliar and Subramania Mudaliar, and appointing her the guardian of the persons of those two minor children, subject to certain terms, like sending the children for two days in the week and on other auspicious occasions to their father, undertaking not to alienate the affections of the children from the father, educating the children properly, etc.2. We have perused the entire records and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The facts were briefly these : Kumaraswami Mudaliar, the appellant before us, belongs to an ancient, rich and aristocratic family of Tondaimandalam Mudaliars in Tirunelveli town, called the Dalavois. He had marr...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad418; [1956]29ITR842(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These four references raise the same question of law as to whether the income from the dividend received by the assessees concerned in the several references was liable to be grossed up under Section 16(2) of the Income-tax Act so as to enable the assessees to have the benefit of the relief under Section 18 (5) of the Act.2. It is sufficient to state the facts of case referred No. 20 of 1953, as the others which relate to other shareholders in receipt of similar dividends for the same company are exactly' similar.3. The assessee was a share-holder in the Chettinad Company Ltd., Pudukottai, incorporated under the Pudukottai Companies Act with its registered office at Pudukottai -- a non-resident company. During the assessment year 1946-47 (the accounting year ended 31-3-1946) the assessee received a dividend income of Rs. 47,612 from this company, the amount having been remitted to British India in the same accounting year.4. The Chettinad Company was not asses...
Tag this Judgment!Medai Dalavoi T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar Vs. Medai Dalavoi Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad563
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This is an appeal by one Dalavoi Kumaraswami Mudaliar against the order of Ramaswami J. in A. A. O. No. 83 of 1955, reversing the order of the District Judge of Tirunelveli, dismissing O. P. No. 19 of 1954, filed by his wife Rajammal alias Valliammal, for making her the guardian of the person of her two minor sons, Shanmuganatha Mudaliar and Subramania Mudaliar, and appointing her the guardian of the persons of those two minor children, subject to certain terms, like sending the children for two days in the week and on other auspicious occasions to their father, undertaking not to alienate the affections of the children from the father, educating the children properly, etc. 2. We have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel on both sides. The facts were briefly these: Kumaraswami Mudaliar, the appellant before us, belongs to an ancient, rich and aristocratic family of Tondaimandalam Mudaliars inTirunelveli town, called the Dalavois. He hadmarr...
Tag this Judgment!M. A. Chidambaram Chettiar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR405(Mad)
.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - These four references raise the same question of law as to whether the income from the dividend received by the assessee concerned in the several references was liable to be grossed up under section 16 (2) of the Income-tax Act so as to enable assessees to have the benefit of the relief under section 18 (5) of the Act.It is sufficient to state the facts of Case Referred No. 20 of 1953 as the others which relate to other shareholders in receipt of similar dividends from the same company are exactly similar.The assessee was a shareholder in the Chettinad Company Ltd., Pudukottai, incorporated under the Pudukottai Companies Act with its registered office at Pudukottai - a non-resident company. During the assessment year 1946-47 (the accounting year ended 31st March, 1946) the assessee received a dividend income of Rs. 47,612 from this company, the amount having been remitted to British India in the same accounting year.The Chettinad Company was not assessed to i...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.S. Marimuthu Nadar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad44; [1956]30ITR670(Mad)
1. The assessee, Marimuthu Nadar, and his divided sons entered into a partnership on 1661946. On that date two of the divided sons, Bhaskara and Rajasekhara, were minors, and they were admitted to the benefits of the partnership.2. In the assessment year 194050, the previous year having ended on 1681948, the share of Marimuthu in the profits of the partnership came to Rs. 9812, in computing his assessable total income, the shares of the minors, Bhaskara and Rajasekhara amounting to Rs. 8124 and Rs. 8381, were added under the provisions of Section 16 (3)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessee, however, was granted earned Income relief only on the basis of his individual share Rs. 9812.3. In the assessment year 195051, the share of the assessee Marimuthu in the profits of the partnership amounted to Rs. 12344. Bhaskara had meanwhile become sui juris. Under the provisions of Section 16(3)(a)(ii) Rajasekhara's share Rs. 10143 was included in computing the total income of Marimuthu. But the assess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »