Chennai Court July 1958 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.
The Central Bank of India, Branch Office Vs. Multanmull Misrimull Firm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ187
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., which reversed the decree of the Third Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in O.S. No. 180 of 1949. That suit was instituted by the firm called M/s. Multanmull Misrimull, carrying on business in Perumal Mudali Street, George Town, Madras, against the Central Bank of India, Ltd., having a branch office in China Bazaar Road, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,055-10-0 with interest from the date of the plaint under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in the suit, the respondent before us, paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 into the China Bazaar branch of the appellant-Bank in Madras on 4th January, 1949, for the purpose of effecting a transfer of this sum by telegram to their representative in Ferozabad, one Milapchand Motaji. The appellant-Bank had a branch at Terozabad. According to the case in the plaint, when Milapchand went to the defendant's branch at Ferozaba...
Sundaram and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad281
Rajagopalan, J.1. The questions that were referred to this Court under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Actwere :'1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case having regard to the method of accounting adopted by the appellant, application of the proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act was proper and justified in law and whether the assessment of Rs. 2,45,285 representing commission not received by the appellant was proper and legal; and 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the commission of Rs. 85,287 payable on sales effected in the Indian States could be said to have accrued and arisen in British India and was assessable in British India.'2. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Thiagaraja Chetti v. Commissioner of Income-tax : AIR1954SC263 under virtually similar circumstances, concludes the second question. We answer the second question in the affirmative and against the assessee.3. The relevant facts with reference to which the firs...
Shah Lalchand Moolchand Vs. R.S. JaIn and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad75; (1958)IIMLJ561
1. The decision of this appeal depends upon the construction of one of the rules of the Madras Kirana Merchants' Association, Madras, of which both the appellant and the respondent are members. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendants regarding a contract for the supply of five jars of mercury. The plaintiff in accordance with Rule 15 of the above rules referred the matter to the Association for decision in accordance with the rules. Rule 15 inter alia provides that all disputes relating to or incidental to contracts and business either between (a) members, (b) members and brokers or in cases where either party to the contract is a member of the Association shall be decided by a Tribunal of arbitration as hereinafter provided and not otherwise.Rule 16 lays down that the decision of the Tribunal of arbitration shall be binding on the members and brokers and all other parties to the reference. Rule 17, so far as it is material to the present case, runs as follows :"The Ar...
M.R.Rm.Mr.Rm. Murugappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kannammai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad76; (1958)IIMLJ461
1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law which we think can be answered by a reference to the principle of the Full Bench decision in Ayyappa v. Kasiperumal Nayakar, ILR 1939 Mad 374 : (AIR 1939 Mad 250). The question is whether a creditor who has obtained a decree against a debtor whose property has been sold in execution of a decree obtained by another creditor can apply to have the sale set aside under Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. Of course if the applicant is not only the holder of another decree but also had applied for rateable distribution of assets or taken steps which would entitle him to such a rateable distribution, then ho would have the right to apply; hut in the present case admittedly the decree-holder who is the appellant before us, has not taken any step in execution. He will not therefore be a person entitled to share in the rateable distribution of assets.Then it only remains to consider whether he can he said to be a person whose interests are affected b...
C.N. Nallappa Mudaliar Vs. the Election Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ423
ORDERBalakrishna Iyer, J.1. In October, 1955, an election was held in the seventh ward of the Municipal Town of Salem. After the votes were counted the petitioner was declared elected as he had secured 1198 votes. The second respondent was found to have secured 1122 and the third respondent 117 votes. Subsequently the second respondent filed an election petition before the Election Commissioner and Subordinate Judge, Salem, challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds. In his petition the second respondent alleged that the petitioner and his agent had connived and obtained impersonation of voters. By an order he made on 19th August, 1957, the Election Commissioner held that three instances of impersonation had been established and set aside the election. The present petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash this order of the Election Commissioner.2. Mr. Mohan Kumaiamangalam, the learned advocate for the petitioner, raised only one point, and...
Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Fraser and Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad181; (1958)2MLJ449
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition by the Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd. for the issue of a writ of prohibitions to restrain the first respondent from carrying on any investigation into the affairs of the company in pursuance of an order made under Section 33 of the Insurance Act by the Central Government. 2. The relevant facts are these; The petitioner company was incorporated on 25-9-1941 and came under the purview of the Insurance Act of 1938. The company applied for and obtained certificates of registration for carrying on various classes of insurance business. On 15-10-1956 there was an Extraordinary General Meeting of the shareholders of the company at which four resolutions were passed. By the first it was resolved; 'that the company do forthwith cease to carry on business as insurers in respect of fire, motor, marine, and accident and other general insurance business.' The second resolution required the Directors 'to stop the carrying on the busine...
A.S. Nagappa Chetty Vs. Gridaridass Tikamdas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ437
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against decree of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in N.T.A. No. 358 of 1954. The second defendant is the petitioner. The suit was filed by the respondent on a promissory note executed by the first defendant. The second defendant was sought to be made liable for the debt due by the first defendant on the basis of a letter of guarantee, Exhibit P-2 alleged to have been executed by him. That letter, Exhibit P-2 bears a date later than the date of the promissory note. The case for the plaintiff in regard to the letter of guarantee was two-fold. The first was that it was supported by independent consideration, namely respondent giving time for payment by the debtor and secondly, that it was only a renewal of his earlier letter of guarantee given on the date of the promissory note. The first defendant was ex parte but the second defendant contested the claim by disputing the genuineness of Exhibit P-2 and also its relation to ...
Vaithiyam Nanjappa Vs. D. Ramanatha Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ566
Ramachandhra Iyer, J.1. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 206 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri, is the petitioner herein. This Revision Petition arises out of an order granting rateable distribution to the simple money creditors of the second respondent. The second respondent had executed a mortgage in favour of the petitioner herein on the foot of which he filed the above suit and obtained a decree against the second respondent and certain others in 1951. E.P. No. 425 of 1955 was filed for realization of one instalment of that decree amount which was due to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act, 1955 (Act I of 1955). One item of the mortgaged property was old and a sum of Rs. 400 was realised by that sale and was deposited in Court. Meanwhile certain simple money decree-holders-of the second Respondent applied for rateable distribution of the assets realised in E.P. No. 425 of 1955,...
Noor Saheb and anr. Vs. S.A. Mohammad Ghouse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad105; (1958)IIMLJ612
1. The only question in this appeal against the judgment of Somasundaram J. in C.C.C.A. No. 23 of 1951 is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises, that is, O.S. No. 1382 of 1949, is not maintainable because of the provisions of Section 47, C. P. C. The facts are not in dispute and may he briefly stated. The plaintiff-respondent is the owner of a plot of land in Muktharunnissa Begum St. Triplicaue, Madras.Defendants 1 and 2, the appellants before us own and possess the superstructure on the said, land of which they are the tenants holding, under the plaintiffs. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 1561 of 1941 in the City Civil Court, to eject the defendants-appellants on payment by him of such sum us the Court may fix for the value of the superstructures after deducting therefrom Rs. 81-8-0 being the rent and damages for use and occupation of the said land and future damages.In the alternative, if the defendants applied for leave to buy the said land ho prayed for directions to...
V.S. Govindarajulu Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad77; [1958]34ITR594(Mad); (1958)2MLJ403
1. Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question for the decision of this Court ;"Whether the assesses is entitled to relief under Section 7 of the Excess Profits Tax Act on Rs. 32,220 the deficiency of the aforesaid cinema business, for the chargeable accounting period. 13-4-1944 to 12-4-1945, against the Excess Profits tax assessments up-to 12-4-1944."2. The relevant facts are these : The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, was originally carrying on money-lending business and a trade in yarn. It was also operating a cinema. With effect from 12-3-1944 the family transferred the money-lending business and the trade in yarn to a firm comprising all the members of the family. The cinema business alone was retained by the joint family as such. In the years ended 12-4-1940 12-4-1941, 13-4-1943 and 12-4-1944 the cinema business sustained losses.The years end...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »