Chennai Court January 1957 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.
In Re: E.T. Palaniappa Chettiar and Co., Pollachi by Partners E.T. Pal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad660; 1957CriLJ1149
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Rollachi in C. C. Nos. 199, 200 and 201 of 1956. The respondents in this reference are cotton merchants of Coimbatore. They had to take a licence under the Cotton Control Order, 1950 for the purchase, ginning, storing and sale of raw cotton. In fact, these respondents had taken out licenses which expired on 31-8-1954.If these persons had contravened the provisions of the Cotton Control Order, 1950 then they could be proceeded with under the powers and penalties prescribed under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, viz., Section 3 Of that Act,2. This Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, expired by efflux of time on 26-1-1955, and naturally the prosecutions launched under the Cotton Control Order of 1950 got also terminated thereby; in other words, there could not be prosecutions launched under the Act after its expiry.3. The Government passed the Essential Commod...
In Re: Arcot Citizen Bank Ltd., Arcot by A.E. Chandrasekhara Nayagar, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad675; 1957CriLJ1279
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are four connected revisions art-sing from prosecutions under the Indian Companies Act. 1913.2. The revision petitioners in Crl. R. C. No. 772 of 1956 were prosecuted for not filing within-21 days after the date of the first or only ordinary general meeting In the year 1952, a complete list of members and summary under Section 32, Clause (3) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioners in Crl. R. O. No. 773 Of 1956 were prosecuted for not filing within 21 days after 'the date' of the first or only general meeting in the year 1953 a complete list of members and summary under Section 32, Clause (3) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioners in Crl. R. O. No. 773 of 1956 were prosecuted for not laying the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 1952 at a general body meeting held during the year 1953 as required by Section 131 (1) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 775 of 1956 were prosecuted...
Nagammai Achi Vs. Alamelu Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad401; [1957]31ITR673(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in I. A. No. 420 of 1956 in O. S. No. 140 of 1953 on the file of his Court, That application was one made by the first defendant, the present petitioner, under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, for directing the plaintiff to produce into Court the documents discovered by her in Schedules B and C to her affidavit of discovery.The application was ordered in regard to the B. Schedule documents; but it was refused in regard to the documents discovered in Schedule C. Those documents arc assessment orders, and returns and statements submitted by the plaintiff to the Income-tax Officer. The plaintiff claimed that those documents were 'confidential' within the meaning of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act and that therefore she could not be compelled to produce them into Court,It is clear, and, indeed, it was not disputed, that the documents in controversy would fall within t...
Subramania Desikar Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhigal Adhinakarthar, Dh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad448
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for decision in this civil revision petition is whether the lower Court was justified in wholly disallowing the advocate's fee of Rs. 1,000, claimed for examining the title deeds for the purpose of investing the land acquisition money, and of Rs. 250, the advocate's fee for filing and appearing in I. A. No. 158 of, 1953. It was urged 01 behalf of the learned Government Pleader that the cost of the examining the title deeds cannot be included in the term 'cost of investment' under Section 32(2) I cannot at all agree.Before an investment can be made properly and no Court should encourage improper and careless investment -- the title deeds have to be very carefully examined by a competent lawyer. It would be wholly unjustifiable to disallow a reasonable advocate's fee for examination of such title deeds. If authority were required for such an elementary proposition, I may quote a decision of the Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising of G...
R. Soundararajan and anr. Vs. the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC253(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a revision preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in C. C. No. 3 of 1956, which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nagapattinam in C. A. No. 75 of 1956.2. The established facts are : One Rajagopala Aiyangar is the owner of a rice mill at Alivalam near Tiruvarur. On 9th January, 1956, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tanjore, went with his peon to this rice mill at about 2-30 p.m. to inspect the accounts. On going there, he found the sons of the proprietor, accused 1 and 2, studying some account books near a table inside the premises. The Special A.C.T.O. disclosed himself as such to those two persons and told them that he had come for inspection. He was allowed to inspect the account books which were there. In doing so, this officer noticed two small note books kept in the drawer. The first note book related to the period from 1st April, 1955, to 7th December, 1955, and the 0ond no...
Srilasri Subramania Desikar Gnanasambanda Pandarasannadhigal and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ97
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The only point for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the lower Court was justified in wholly disallowing the Advocate's fee of Rs. 1,000 claimed for examining the title deeds for the purpose of investing the land as acquisition money, and of Rs. 250, the Advocate's fee for filing and appearing in I.A. No. 158 of 1953. It was urged on behalf of the learned Government Pleader that the cost of examining the title deeds cannot be included in the term ' cost of investment' under Section 32(2). I cannot at all agree. Before an investment can be made properly and no Court should encourage improper and careless investment the title deeds have to be very carefully examined by a competent lawyer. It would be wholly unjustifiable to disallow a reasonable Advocate's fee for examination of such title deeds. If authority were required for such an elementary proposition, I may quote a decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Guha a...
Kannappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Manickam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad665
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal raises the question of limitation as regards E.P. No. 115 of 1955 in O.S. No. 49 of 1948 which was filed on 5-7-1954. The decree which was put into execution was a final decree passed in a partition suit allotting certain properties to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and other proper-ties to the defendants. The second plaintiff and defendant 1 and 3 are brothers and the first plaintiff is the wife of the second plaintiff. Under Clause (a) of the final decree, out of the sum of Rs. 4700 being the sale-proceeds of a house (which was sold as it was not convenient to effect a division by metes and bounds) after deducting poundage commission fee, etc, the balance of the amount was divided into two shares and the plaintiffs were allotted for their half share a sum of Rs. 2258-8-0. and defendants 1 and 2 the other moiety of the amount. It will also be seen that under Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of that decree, the defendants were made liable to pay the plaintiffs certain o...
Yoosuf Maulvi Vs. Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad484
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On a petition which he himself filed, M. Mohideen, was adjudged insolvent on 24-3-1955. During his examination before the learned Deputy Official Assignee, the insolvent stated that he had purchased a piece of vacant land, No. 29-B, Fakir Sahib Street, Royapuram, for Rs. 600, that he had put up a superstructure thereon costing Rs. 4,000, and that on 27-2-1954 he had sold the property to one Mrs. Agnes Sebastian for Rs. 4,000.2. On 5-5-1955 one Yoosuf Moulvi who had obtained a decree against the insolvent in S.C.S. No. 2989 of 1954 for a sum of about Rs. 1,500 took out an application for a direction to the insolvent to render an account of the moneys in his hands on the date of his insolvency. The case of the applicant was that even on the admission of the insolvent he should have had in his hands a sum of Rs. 2,100 out of the sale consideration Rs. 4,000. The learned Official Assignee filed a report in which he stated that as there was no money to the credit of ...
T.E.K. Muhammad AmiruddIn Vs. T.E. Muhammad Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad667
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a peculiar case. The petitioner, Muhammad Amiruddin, filed O. S. No. 70 of 1952 in the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for the taking of accounts of a dissolved partnership concern, in which he claimed he was a partner along with the defendants, and alleged further that the partnership was dissolved on 18-9-1950, long before the filing of the suit. He valued the suit, under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act, at Rs. 4,500 and paid court-fee thereon. The court-fee examiner issued a check slip, stating that, in essence, the petitioner must be deemed to have asked for a declaration that he was a partner with the defendants, since the defendants were denying that he was a partner, and that, as the partnership assets would be worth Rs. 40,000, he ought to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 500 for such declaration. The lower Court agreed with him and called upon the petitioner to pay the additional court-fee of Rs. 500. This civil revision petition has been ...
Muruvan and ors. Vs. Ramabadra Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad742
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting point, namely, whether ah appeal lies in regard to the award of compensation for illegal seizure or detention under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act.2. It is now well settled that since the word 'offence' as defined by Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code includes an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act a person against whom an order under Section 22 is made is a person 'convicted on a trial' within the meaning of this section and an appeal against the conviction lies, therefore, under Section. 407; Cr. P. C.3. The case-law on the subject may now be briefly summarised. In the matter of ponnuswami, ILR 29 Mad 517 (A), a Bench of this Court consisting of Benson and Moore, JJ., after the amendment: of the Cattle Trespass Act, held that by Section 4(o) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the word 'offence' includes an act in respect of which a complaint m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›