Chennai Court August 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.
Maddala Thathiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning the M and S.M. Railwa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ584
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder, J., dismissing the appellant's suit in C.S. No. 380 of 1949, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,063-7-3 from the Dominion of India as the owner of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway represented by the General Manager of that Railway. The plaintiff claimed that amount as damages consequent on a breach of contract alleged to have been committed by the defendant. The material facts are not in dispute. In pursuance of an invitation by the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway for tenders for the supply of jaggery to the railway grainshops the plaintiff submitted on 27th January, 1948, a tender in the prescribed form offering to supply 14,000 imperial maunds of cane jaggery, Chittore variety, first sort, during the months of February and March, 1948, at the rate of Rs. 11-4-0 per imperial maund. The defendant in a letter addressed by the Deputy General Manager of the Railway dated 20th Janu...
M. Vaidyanathan Vs. the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Erode and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad65; 1957CriLJ205
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. The Agricultural and Industrial Corporation Ltd., was incorporated in 1947 under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. At the meeting of the General Body of the shareholders held on 5-3-1949 the petitioner was elected the Managing Director of the company in the place of one Narayana Rao who had been the Managing Director up to then. The petitioner claimed, that on 17-7-1949 at another meeting of the General Body of the Shareholders one A. S. Venkata Rao was elected the Managing Director, and the petitioner handed over charge of the affairs of the company to Venkata Rao. The claim in the counter-affidavit of respondent 2 was that the petitioner functioned along with A. S. Venkata Rao till 4-5-1950, though Venkata Rao had been elected as director in charge on 17-7-1949. The petitioner further claimed that after 4-5-1950 he ceased to have anything to do with the management of the company. He was employed thereafter at Kozhikode and later at Bom-bay. 2. ...
Nemiraja Kottari Vs. Kinni Alias Kanthamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad94
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out or proceedings instituted for enquiring into the mesne profits in pursuance of a decree for possessiongranted in favour of the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 3. The title to the suit property was in dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3; and the suit property was leased to tile fourth defendant under Ex. B. 1 dated 26-2-1944. Subsequently on 19-7-1949 the plaintiff was declared entitled to the suit property.The title in favour of the plaintiff having bee n upheld a decree for possession was passed against defendants l to 3; but the person who was in actual possession was the fourth defendant, the present appellant. In the application for ascertaining the mesne profits the plaintiff claimed mesne profits from all the defendants, viz., defendants 1 to 4.The fourth defendant's contention is that in so far as he is concerned he was put in possession by defendants 1 to 3, that he has paid the rents to them, that he is not li...
Subramaniam Vs. Pakkiriswami Vandayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad159
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tanjore in E. A. No. 369 of 1955 on his file. The contention put forward by Mr. T. S. Kuppuswami Aiyar for the petitioners is that the lower Court failed to exercise a Jurisdiction vested in it by law by refusing to comply with the application for the Issue of a cheque and that if I am satisfied that the learned, District Munsif has misdirected himself with regard to the provision of law applicable, then the order of the. lower Court has to be set aside:2. The short facts which have led up to this petition are as follows: In Order 8. No. 50 of 1954, on the file of the District Munsif, Tanjore, the petitioner, Subramaniam, flled a suit for the recovery of a sum of money against the respondents, one Pakkiriswami Vandayar, and pending decision obtained an attachment before judgment of certain, moneys due to this Pakkiriswami Vandayar from Raja Mirasidar Hospital, Tanjore. There was no dispute tha...
M. Kevalchand Sowcar Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad514; 1957CriLJ962
1. The petitioner is a pawnbroker, who has obtained a licence under the provisions of the Madras Pawnbrokers Act, XXIII of 1943. The relief, the petitioner asked for in the application he filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to restrain the Sub Magistrate, Poonamallee, from proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner 'initiated under Section 15(1) of the pawnbrokers Act. The constitutional validity of the Pawnbrokers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged by the petitioner; and in particular he challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, 6, 10, 13 and 20 of the Act. During the arguments, however, the validity of other sections of the Act also was assailed.2. It may not be necessary to set out the events that led up to the institution of these proceedings by the petitioner. The question debated before me was, whether the Act as a whole or at least many of its provisions are void...
M. Ayyasami Nadar and Bros., Colombo Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad74; [1956]30ITR565(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are petitions under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act invoking our jurisdiction to direct the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law to this court for its decision.2. The two petitions relate to the assessment years 1943-44 and 1944-45 respectively and arise out of the proceedings imposing penalties upon the petitioner for concealment of the particulars of his income in the returns which he submitted for the respective years. The assessment for the year 1943-44 with which C.M.P. No. 3138 of 1956 is concerned was completed on 14-2-1945. Subsequent to the filing of the return the petitioner examined himself before the Income-tax Officer on 5-1-1944 and in the course of his examination he conceded that certain items of credit which were shown as if the moneys belonged to outsiders were really his own moneys and the profits of the business.Similarly in regard to 1944-45 the assessment of which was completed on 30-11-1945 the assesse...
C.V.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. P. Jeevarathunammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad106
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants in O. S. No. 182 of 1949 on the file of the Sub Court of Devakottai are members of a Hindu Joint family belonging to the Nattu-kottai Chettiar community, being the sons of one Venkatachalam Chettiar who was doing banking business in Kanadukathan, Ramanathapuram district as well as in various other places in Burma The suit against them was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,689-4-3 being the amount due under an alleged deposit account with interest thereon.The plaintiff allied that she was residing in Burma with her husband from about 1920 till she left it in 1933 and that during the period of her residence there, she became a customer of the C. V. R. M. Bank at Burma which was the defendants' family firm doing banking business and opened a deposit account, depositing for interest all the moneys she had been saving from time to time.All the amounts deposited by her were entered in a pass book and the total of the amounts in deposit was ascertained to be Rs. 2...
C.V.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. P. Jeevarathnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ508
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 182 of 1949 on the file of the Sub-Court of Devakottai are members of a Hindu joint family belonging to the Nattukottai Chettiar community, being the sons of one Venkatachalam Chettiar who was doing banking business in Kanadukathan, Ramanathapuram district, as well as in various other places in Burma. The suit against them was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,689-4-3 being the amount due under an alleged deposit account with interest thereon. The plaintiff alleged that she was residing in Burma with her husband from about 1920 till she left it in 1933 and that during the period of her residence there, she became a customer of the C.V.R.M. Bank at Burma which was the defendants* family firm doing banking business and opened a deposit account, depositing for interest all the moneys she had been saving from time to time. All the amounts deposited by her were entered in a pass book and the total of the amounts in deposit was ascertained to be Rs. 2...
State of Madras by Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. C. Karuppa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ601
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The total turnover of the assessee was Rs. 10,2689-14-9, as estimated by the departmental authorities. The assessee's accounts showed a turnover of only Rs. 47,239-1-8. It was also in evidence, based primarily on the note-book of the assessee seized, that for a period of two months purchases to the extent of Rs. 36,209-9-6 had been suppressed, in the sense that they were not brought into the accounts produced by the assessee.2. The explanation of the assessee with reference to the entries in the note-book was, that the note-book did not record completed transactions, but that only transactions which were expected to materialise in future were noted there to aid the memory of the assessee. The assessee further pleaded that, when transactions materialised, the entries from the note-book were brought to his regular account books, and the turnover of those transactions was about Rs. 11,000. The tribunal observed in paragraph 2 of its order that this argument was not ...
State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad678; [1957]8STC38(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The total turnover of the assessee was Rs. 1,02,689-14-9, as estimated by the departmental authorities. The assessee's accounts showed a turn-over of only Rs. 47,239-1-8. It was also in evidence, based primarily on the note book of the assessee seized, that for a period of two months purchases to the extent of Rs. 36,209-9-6 had been suppressed, in the sense that they were not brought into the accounts produced by the assessee. 2. The explanation of the assessed with reference to the entries in the note book was, that the note hook did not record completed transactions, but that only transactions which were expected to materialise in Future were noted there to aid the memory of the assessee. The assessee further pleaded that, when transactions materialised the entries from the note book were brought to his regular account books, and the turnover of those transactions was about Rs. 11,000. The Tribunal observed in paragraph 2 of its order that this argument was not wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›