Chennai Court April 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 37 results (0.013 seconds)Lakshmanprasad and Sons Vs. S.V. Kamal Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad335
(1) This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge, Madras, in A. S. No. 12 of 1955, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O. S. No. 1262 of 1949.(2) The facts are: The appellants M/s. Lakshman Prasad and Sons are a firm of dealers in automobiles carrying on business in Madras. The respondent plaintiff Vajravelu Mudaliar, who had died after the filing of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and whose legal representatives are the respondents in this second appeal, purchased from the appellants a Hindustan-10, four door sedan car on 24-9-1947 for Rs. 9,350/-. That was at a time when the Madras Civil Motor Cars Control Order, 1947. was in force, and no type of car could be sold for a price exceeding that fixed by the Government under that order. It is the case for the plaintiff that this sum of Rs. 9350/- was represented to be the controlled price exclusive of tax...
Tag this Judgment!Devichand Jestimall and Co., Bangalore and ors. Vs. the Collector of C ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad281; 1960CriLJ925
ORDER(1) On receipt of certain information the Superintendent of Central Excise, Vellore, searched the shop and residence of Messrs. Venechand and sons on 9-11-1957. He seized from the shop 121-7/32 tolas of gold. This included 2 bars of 10 tolas each with foreign marks. The residence of the proprietor of the firm was next searched and from there 5 bars of 10 tolas each with foreign marks were recovered. According to the accounts maintained by Venechand and Sons the stock of gold on hand should have been only 98 tolas. A perusal of the private accounts maintained by this firm showed that it had received gold from the four petitioners in these cases in the past and that the receipts of such gold were not accounted for in the regular account books.On 10-11-1957, Bijraj, son of Venechand Bhatwada who was managing the business stated that the several gold bars bearing foreign marks and weighing 70 tolas which had been seized from the shop as well as from the residence were received from th...
Tag this Judgment!The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras 1 Vs. H.V. J ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad534
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Iyer, J., disposing of two writ petitions filed by the respondent H. V. Jain (W.P. Nos. 107 and 216 of 1958). The material facts are not in dispute. The respondent was a partner in a firm named Messrs. Sha Bhagajee Sonmull, Madras. The firm consisted of four partners and was doing business principally in import of various articles. The firm was recognised as an established importer in respect of the articles which it used to import. Owing to differences between the partners the firm was dissolved on and from 21st November, 1956. After dissolution, the respondent and the three partners submitted their applications individually for licences against quota rights of the dissolved firm. They were informed that their applications would be considered after the approval of the Chief Controller of Imports for transfer of quota rights. The licences applied for were for periods July to December, 1956, and January to June, 1957. By an order, da...
Tag this Judgment!The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Vs. H.V. Jain
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ308
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Iyer, J., disposing of two writ petitions filed by the respondent H. V. Jain (W.P. Nos. 107 and 216 of 1958). The material facts are not in dispute. The respondent was a partner in a firm named Messrs. Sha Bhagajee Sonmull, Madras. The firm consisted of four partners and was doing business principally in import of various articles. The firm was recognised as an established importer in respect of the articles which it used to import. Owing to differences between the partners the firm was dissolved on and from 21st November, 1956. After dissolution, the respondent and the three partners submitted their applications individually for licences against quota rights of the dissolved firm. They were informed that their applications would be considered after the approval of the Chief Controller of Imports for transfer of quota rights. The licences applied for were for periods July to December, 1956, and January to J...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Ramaswamy Naidu Vs. Salammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ417
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.P. No. .. of 1958 directing the petitioner to pay Court-fee as under Article 11(re) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act of 1955.2. The petition that was filed in the lower Court was at the instance of the Arbitrator under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing the award passed by him. The petition was filed with a Court-fee of Rs. 10 under Article 11, Sub-clause (I) of Schedule II of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Court-fee paid was insufficient and that the proper Court-fee was payable under Article 11(n); Article 11(n) states:Application under Section 14 or Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for direction for filing an award or for an order for filing an agreement and application for enforcing foreign awards. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present case to refer to the rest of the Article. Article 11(1) refer...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Narayanaswami Iyer and ors. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad58
(1) The two second appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami J. and the civil revision petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions inKishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion, , and the Governor General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal, . In the former case, Mack J. took the view that, in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate action notice under Sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, notice under Sec. 77 given to one such railway which en...
Tag this Judgment!Pena Parayan Ambalam Vs. Venkatachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ346
Ramaswami, J.1. There is much substance in the contention raised by Mr. Natesan that an acknowledgment in a sale proclamation about the subsisting character of a mortgage by the decree-holder who ultimately became an auction-purchaser and purchased the property for low value on the foot that it was being bought subject to the subsisting mortgage would operate to save limitation in so far as that mortgage is concerned. In this contention he is supported by the decision of this Court in Krishnayya v. Venkatappiah and Ors. : AIR1925Mad134 , the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jugal Kishore v. Fakhruddin I.L.R. (1906) All. 90, and a decision of a single Judge in Bombay High Court in Fakirchand Janakiram v. Narmada Bai I.L.R. (1943) Bom. 701. The learned advocate rightly points out that the decision of Lukur, J., was subsequently reversed in a Letters Patent Appeal reported in Fakirchand Janakiram v. Narmada Bai A.I.R. 1948 Bom. 125. If I have to decide this matter, I shall be great...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. Union of India (Uoi), by General Manager, ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ479
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The two Second Appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami, J., and the Civil Revision Petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion (1955) 1 M.L.J. 79 and The Governor-General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal (1952) 2 M.L.J. 24. In the former case, Mack, J., took the view that in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate notice under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, n...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Rajagopalachariar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad543
(1) These petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to the orders of the District Collector of Tanjore in R. C. No. 26411/56-M1. and R. C. No. 37193/56-M.4 and the quash orders passed thereon 17-5-1956 and 26-9-1956 respectively.(2) The petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar owning about 250 acres of land in Edayur and Keepalarumazhi villages in Thiruthuraipoondi taluk, Tanjore District. He also owns lands in south Arcot and Chingleput Districts. The total land revenue assessed on his lands is Rs. 1691-9-6. This assessment was based on the ryotwari settlement effected in 1924. In 1954 the State Legislature passed the Madras Land Revenue Surcharge Act XIX of 1954 enabling the Government to levy a surcharge on a landholder who was liable to pay a sum exceeding Rs. 500 as land revenue per year. That Act was followed by another Act XXX of 1955 which provided for the levy of an additional surcharge.The result is that in addition to the ordinary asse...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Rajagopalachariar Vs. the State of Madras by Collector
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ344
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. These Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to the orders of the District Collector of Tanjore in R.C. No. 26411/56 M-1 and R.C. No. 37193/56 M-4, and to quash orders passed thereon on 17th May, 1956 and 26th September, 1956, respectively.2. The petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar owning about 250 acres of land in Edayur and Keepalerumazhai villages in Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk, Tanjore District. He also owns lands in South Arcot and Chingleput Districts. The total land revenue assessed on his lands is Rs. 1,691-9-6. This assessment was based on the ryotwari settlement effected in 1924. In 1954, the State Legislature passed the Madras Land Revenue Surcharge Act (XIX of 1954) enabling the Government to levy a surcharge on a landholder who was liable to pay a sum exceeding Rs. 500 as land revenue per year. That Act was followed by another Act XXX of 1955 which provided for the levy of an additional surcharge. Th...
Tag this Judgment!