Chennai Court August 1958 Judgments
Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Jothaji Maniram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad285
Ramachandra Iyer, J. 1. The respondent a merchant at Madras sent on 9-3-1955 a parcel of pen nibs valued at Rs. 1600 to Calcutta through the Indian Airlines Corporation, the petitioner. Before accepting the goods for carriage, the petitioner issued a consignment note, Ex. P. 1. It sets out the terms andconditions of the carriage. In the front portion of Ex. P. 1 the agent of the respondent, who despatched the goods, signed a statement stating that he was aware of and was accepting the general conditions of carnage and special conditions, more particularly referred to or set out on the reverse of that document. One of the special conditions, which is legibly printed on the reverse of the consignment note was that the carrier, namely, the petitioner, 'shall he under no liability whatsoever to the consignor or to the consignee etc. for loss, damage, detention or delay to the goods arising out of the carriage ...... whether or not caused or occasioned by the act, neglect, negligence or def...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. the Madura Knitting Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC155(Mad)
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the State of Madras represented by the District Collector, Madurai, the defendant in O.S, No. 108 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, against the judgment and decree therein.2. The facts are briefly these: That was a suit filed by the Madura Knitting Company Ltd., respondent in this appeal, for a declaration that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 30th March, 1951, sustained by the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Board of Revenue, Madras, cancelling a rebate to the extent of over 22 lakhs granted originally by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 6th December, 1949, in the turnover of the respondent company regarding their export of hosiery goods outside the State was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction, and for an injunction restraining the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai Town III, from enforcing the order for the collection of Rs. 17,204-11-3 issued in pursuance...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad389; 1959CriLJ1085; (1958)2MLJ606
1. This is an application to quash the charge framed by the District Magistrate of Chingleput. Three charges have been framed against the accused; namely, for offences under Sections 3(1), 4(1) and 6(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. There is no dispute about the fact that the police officer who investigated into this case is an Inspector of Police. In fact, nothing has been alleged against the Inspector of police as such, but the point that is raised is that under the above Act, the officer who can deal with an offence under Section 13 should be not less than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the moffasal according to the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) and inasmuch as this investigation has been conducted by an Inspector of Police, who is below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, the whole investigation becomes illegal and the court should not, therefore, proceed with the trial of the case based upon the illegal investigatio...
Tag this Judgment!A. Arunachala Naicker Vs. Ghulam Mahmood Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad191; (1959)1MLJ181
1. This Civil revision petition arises at the instance of the tenant against whom a decree has been passed in a suit for eviction. In 1917 the respondent granted a lease of a property, a land, for certain agricultural purposes to the petitioner. After the termination of the lease the respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant in O. S. No. 283 of 1945. The tenant set up various defences, namely, a denial of the title of the plaintiff, want of proper notice to quit etc. It is significant that there was no plea claiming that the tenant was entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. A decree for ejectment was passed on 20-8-1846.An appeal was filed against that decree to this Court which failed. That decree was further confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal and the proceedings finally terminated on 23-3-1950 when the tenant was given one year's time to vacate the land. An application for delivery of possession was thereafter filed in E. P. No. 1403 of 1951....
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Padayachi Vs. Shanmugha Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ201
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition sought to be preferred against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Virudhachalam in I.A. No. 27 of 1958 in S.C.S. No. 827 of 1957, declining to review the decree and judgment therein made on 10th December, 1957.2. The facts are :-The petitioner was the defeated plaintiff in the aforesaid Small Cause Suit, which was filed for recovery of the amount due on a promissory note executed by the deceased brother of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 18th June, 1954, for Rs. 225. The defendant contended that his brother Chinnamani did not execute the alleged suit promissory note and that it has been fabricated. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, the scribe of the promissory note as P.W. 2 and an attestor mentioned therein as P.W. 3. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1. On the evidence it was contended that the suit promissory note is a fabrication on the ground that firstly, the defendant's bro...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. V. Rajagopala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad356; 1959CriLJ1001; (1958)2MLJ549
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram under the following circumstances: The respondent was prosecuted in G. C. No. 90 of 1955 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottah, for an offence under Section 14(c) of the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 in that he showed reduced income falsely to escape entertainments tax in respect of a theatre managed by him.After the prosecution evidence was over and filter the accused was questioned under Section 342 Cri. P. C., it appeared to the prosecution that there were other partners in addition to the respondent herein. The Assistant Public Prosecutor II thereupon filed a memo stating that a fresh charge-sheet will be filed against the accused and two other partners on the same facts and, therefore, the proceedings should be stayed under Section 249 Cri P. C. As the case wastriable as a summons case, a complaint was filed against...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ585
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the State of Madras for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, in Revenue Appeal No. 73 of 1955 on its file.2. The village of Avarendal in Paramakudi taluk in Ramanathapuram district was an Inam Estate. On 3rd December, 1953, the State of Madras notified and took it over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. One Peria Pappammal, who had been the landholder of the village, applied to the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Aruppukottai, for the grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of various items of land. We are now concerned only with twelve of those items. The Special Tahsildar objected before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer to the grant of the ryotwari patta claimed by Peria Pappammal on the ground that those twelve items of lands are liable to submersion under the irrigation tank of the village. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer rejected the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.M. Muthiah Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad158; [1958]33ITR567(Mad); (1959)2MLJ196
1. Certain facts and circumstances are common to all these cases and we shall set them out first.2. Between February 1942 and September 1945 Malava was under the occupation of the Japanese. During this period the Occupying Power issued its own currency in dollars and this currency circulated side by side with the previous Malayan currency which was also in dollars. In 1948 the Malayan Legislature enacted an Ordinance to which let'erence will be made presently.The schedule to that Ordinance shows that up-to the end of December, 1942, the new Japanese currency and the old Malayan currency circulated at par. In January 1943, the Japanese currency began to depreciate and in December 1943, one hundred old Malayan dollars were equivalent to 385 new Japanese dollars. In 1944, the depreciation became more rapid with the result that in December 1944, one hundred old Malayan, dollars, were equal to 1850 new Japanese dollars.From January 1945, the rate of depreciation be-came almost a landslide. ...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.M. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ262
1. Certain facts and circumstances are common to all these cases and we shall set them out first.2. Between February, 1942 and September, 1945, Malaya was under the occupation of the Japanese. During this period the Occupying Power issued its own currency in dollars and this currency circulated side by side with the previous Malayan currency which was also in dollars. In 1948, the Malayan Legislature enacted an Ordinance to which reference will be made presently. The Schedule to that Ordinance shows that up to end of December, 1942, the new Japanese currency and the old Malayan currency circulated at par.. In January, 1943. the Japanese currency began to depreciate and in December, 1943, one hundred old Malayan dollars where equivalent to 385 new Japanese dollars. In 1944, the depreciation became more rapid with the result that in December, 1944. one hundred old Malayan dollars were equal to 1,850 new Japanese dollars. From January, 1945 the rate of depreciation became almost a landsli...
Tag this Judgment!M. L. M. Muthiah Chettiar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR339(Mad)
BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, J. - Certain facts and circumstances are common to all these cases and we shall set them out first. Between February, 1942, and September, 1945, Malaya was under the occupation of the Japanese. During this period the occupying power issued its own currency in dollars and this currency circulated side by side with the previous Malayan currency which was also in dollars. In 1948 the Malayan Legislature enacted an Ordinance to which reference will be made presently. The schedule to that Ordinance shows that up to the end of December, 1942, the new Japanese currency and the old Malayan currency circulated at par. In January, 1943, the Japanese currency began to depreciate and in December, 1943, one hundred old Malayan dollars were equivalent to 385 new Japanese dollars. In 1944, the depreciation became more rapid with the result that in December, 1944, one hundred old Malayan dollars were equal to 1,850 new Japanese dollars. From January, 1945, the rate of depreciation b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »