Chennai Court October 1958 Judgments
United India Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Trojan and Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ194
ORDER - The thing has come up for mention today. The scrips should be handed over to the first Respondent, Trojan and Company, and the first Respondent, Trojan & Company, alone will be liable to pay the costs ordered by us. No other thing in the judgment in the Appeal calls for any modification....
Tag this Judgment!L. Balakrishnan Vs. the Deputy Inspector-general of Police, Southern R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad270; (1959)IILLJ514Mad; (1959)1MLJ220
1. All that the petitioner could claim was that at one time he was considered fit for promotion, and that subsequently he was told he was not fit for promotion. Names of persons considered fit for promotion are included in what is known to the department as the C list. That by itself confers no enforceable rights on the persons whose names have been so included. Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Neither the removal of a name from the list of persons tentatively considered fit for promotion, nor even denial of promotion can be equated to any of the punishments for which the Civil Service (Classification and Control) Rules provide. As I said, promotion is not a question of right. Even if the preparation of the list was governed by any statutory rules, neither the amendment of the list nor deletion of names therefrom will make that a justiciable issue, because both continuance in office and preferment in due course or otherwise are still within the pleasure of the executiv...
Tag this Judgment!N. Periaswami and ors. Vs. Naduviduthi Muthiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ194
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These Revision Petitions are filed by the various tenants of the respondent, and they raise a question under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, XXV of 1955.2. The petitioner in each of these Civil Revision Petitions took on lease certain lands for agricultural purposes from the respondent. The Revenue Court at Tirunelveli had fixed a fair rent in respect of Pishanam harvest of 1958. Under the order of the Revenue Court rent was payable in kind and not in cash. C.R.P. No. 1508 of 1958 may be taken as typical of the other Civil Revision Petitions.3. In respect of the lands leased out to the petitioner in (C.R.P. No. 1508/58) the Revenue Court fixed on 5th March, 1958, for the Pishanam harvest, 1958 a rent of 12 kottahs, 4 marakkals and 2 padis of paddy, together with 18 bundles of hay. Under the terms of the lease deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord, the former undertook to inform the lessor as soon as the crops wer...
Tag this Judgment!Asoka Tea Estate (Private) Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Joint Stock Companies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad334
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application made by a private limited company to the District Court of Coimbatore under Section 75(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 praying that the delay in filing a statement in form No. 2 of the allotment of shares before the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Madras, may be condoned and that time may be extended for filing the said document upto 20-7-1956.2. The only facts necessary for disposal of this revision petition are: On 6-4-1956, 234 shares of the company were allotted to 16 persons. The new Act of 1956 came into force on 1-4-1956. For some reason or other, no allotment was filed in the prescribed form under the new Companies Act. It was only on 12th July, 1956, that the Registrar supplied the petitioner with the requisite form and the petitioner filed the statement in proper form on 20-7-1956.Under Section 75(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, the company had to file the statement within one month of the allotme...
Tag this Judgment!P. Orr and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR556(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee company has been a private limited company from 1915. Even during the period from December, 1936, to June, 1938, when it was in form a public company, no shares were issued to the public. After June, 1938, it reverted to its status as a private company. J. M. Smith was in management all through till March, 1950, and it was never in dispute that the present sound position of the company was largely due to his management of its affairs. The assessee company entered into a managing agency agreement, evidenced by annexure A, with Smith Ltd. Smith Ltd. consisted only of Smith and his wife as shareholders, with a nominal capital of Rs. 300. Under that agreement Smith continued to manage the affairs of the assessee company. Clause (1) of the agreement provided : 'The said private company, namely, Smith Ltd. and its assigns and successors in business notwithstanding any change in the name, style or constitution of the said private company, hereinafter called also...
Tag this Judgment!P. Orr and Sons, Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad372
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee company has been a private limited company from 1915. Even during the period from December, 1936 to June, 1938, when it was in form a public company, no shares were issued to the public. After June, 1938 it reverted to its status as a private company. J.M. Smith was in management all through till March 1930, and it was never in dispute that the present sound position of the company was largely due to his management of its affairs.2. The assessee company entered into a managing agency agreement, evidenced by Annexure A, with Smith Ltd. Smith Ltd. consisted only of Smith and his wife as share-holders, with a nominal capital of Rs. 300. Under that agreement Smith continued to manage the affairs of the assessee company. Clause (1) of the agreement provided ;''The said private company, namely Smith Ltd. and its assigns and successors in business notwithstanding any change in the name, style or constitution of the said private company, hereinafter called also b...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pappathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad239; 1959CriLJ724
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai Division in Sessions Case No. 163 of 1957.2. The facts are brief. The accused Pappathi Animal is the wife of P.W. 1. They have been living with their children in a compound where there arc 4 or 5 hours, Pappathi Ammal had been confined within four weeks before the commission of this offence. It would also appear that she was unwell from diarrhoea and fever after child birth. On account of the poverty and inability to secure other help she had to do her household chores. Therefore, she seems to have been depressed and fed up with her life.3. On the night of 28-10-1957 the landlady P.W. 2 heard the noise of a splash and she woke up and found lights burning in the house of the accused. Therefore, she went and woke up P.W. 1, the husband of the accused, and told him what she had heard. They found the accused missing. They started searching the compound. Then they heard...
Tag this Judgment!K. Simrathmull Vs. the Additional Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ189
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a Petition for the issue of a writ prohibiting the Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, from continuing certain proceedings which he initiated by means of a notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, dated 6th February, 1957 and numbered as 86-S/45-46.2. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, in G.I. No. 86-S. On 18th December, 1946, the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner on a total income of Rs. 5,143 under Section 23(3) of the Act. Subsequently, on 31st March, 1956, the Income-tax Officer re-assessed him on a total income of Rs. 39,568. In this amount was included a sum of Rs. 31,000 which the assessee alleged he had taken on loan from Messrs. Mangilal Inderchand, a firm carrying on business in Rajasthan, but which the Income-tax Officer held was Income from undisclosed sources.3. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore and raised various c...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavel Padayachi Vs. Rathna Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ279
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal and the Memorandum of Objections arise out of the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 246 of 1955, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, in O.S. No. 275 of 1952.2. The suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his one-sixth share in the suit properties.3. Defendants 1 to 3 were members of an undivided Hindu family. The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. On 11th October, 1939, there was a partition between the first defendant on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other hand. In that partition the total extent of properties to be divided were acres 29-70 cents of wet land and acres 9-18 cents of dry land and two houses. The properties given to the first defendant under the partition deed were acres 4-61 cents of wet land, 0-66 cents of dry land and a tiled house worth Rs. 60...
Tag this Judgment!K. Simrathmull Vs. Addl. Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad328; [1959]36ITR41(Mad)
1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ prohibiting the Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund, from continuing certain proceedings which he initiated by means of a notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act dated 6-2-1957, and numbered as 86-S/45-46.2. The petitioner is an assesses on the file of the Additional Income-tax Officer, Ootacamund in G. I. No. 86-s. On 18-12-1946, the Income-tax Officer assessed the petitioner on a total income of Rs. 5143, under Section 23 (3) of the Act. Subsequently, on 31-3-1956, the Income-tax Officer re-assessed him on a total income of Rs. 39,568. In this amount was Included a sum of Rs. 31,000, which the assesses alleged he had taken on loan from Messrs. Mangilal Inderchand, a firm carrying on business in Rajasthan, but which the Income-tax Officer held was income from undisclosed sources.3. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatcre, and raised various contentions. One point that he took was that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »