Chennai Court September 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 63 results (0.010 seconds)Ramaswami Iyer Vs. Thandavam Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ490
Ramaswami, J.1. This pauper appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in O.S. No. 11 of 1954 which was also filed in the pauper form.2. The plaintiff who is the karnam of Poolanandapuram village seeks in substance the recovery of the suit lands on the ground that they constitute the emoluments of the office of the karnam of Poolanandapuram. In order to take the suit out of the mischief of Sections 13 and 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895), the reliefs prayed for are a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue passed in 1953 is illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties through the revenue Courts or to direct the defendants (alienees) to hand over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff.3. The facts necessary for understanding the claim made by the plaintiff can be gathered from the order of the District Collector of Madurai Sri N.S. Arunachal...
Tag this Judgment!The Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tirupur Vs. the State of Madras, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad87; [1960]11STC306(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assesses is a spinning mill at Tirupur. It was assessed to sales tax in the assessment year 1951-52 on its' purchases of cotton for spinning under Rule 4-A (iv) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, which prescribed the single point for the levy of sales tax on transactions in cotton required by Section 5(ii) of the Sales-tax Act. The relevant portion of Rule 4-A(iv) as it then stood ran:'4-A- Subject to the provisions of Section 5- .. ... ... ... ... (iv) in the case of cotton (including kapas) the tax under Section 3(1) shall be levied in accordance with the following provisions: (a) in the case of all cotton (including kapas) sold to a spinning mill in the State, the tax shall be levied from the spinning mill on the amount for which it is bought by it;' The Tribunal, agreeing with the Department, held that the assessee's purchases of cotton, which had been imported from abroad, which amounted to Es. 34,61,213-1-9 were liable to be taxed. It was the correctness ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Mohan Krishna Naidu Vs. the National Bank of India Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad213
(1) The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 28-2-1956, in O. S. No. 1222 of 1954 on his file. The plaintiff was employed as a clerk in the defendant bank. On 29-6-1951 the plaintiff was served with an order that his services were terminated with immediate effect. He had been in the service of the bank from 1939 and was in the matter of removal from service, entitled to the protection granted by S. 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 41 is in these terms:"(1) No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuouly for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one months notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided however, that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose.(2) ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Mohana Krishna Naidu Vs. the National Bank of India Ltd., by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ405
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 28th February, 1956 in O.S. No. 1222 of 1954 on his file. The plaintiff was employed as a clerk in the defendant-bank. On 29th June, 1951, the plaintiff was served with an order that his services were terminated with immediate effect. He had been in the service of the bank from 1939 and was, in the matter of removal from service, entitled to the protection granted by Section 41 of the Madras. Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 41 is in these terms:(1) No employer shall dispense with the services of a person employed continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and without giving such person at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, provided, however that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such person are dispensed with on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at...
Tag this Judgment!Santha (Minor) by Next Friend D.B. Purushothama Chettiar and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ318
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. One Bangaru Ammal filed a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties from the respondents on the ground that the properties were inherited by her from her deceased husband and that she was entitled to possession of the same. The contesting respondents claimed title to the properties under one Andalammal, daughter of Bangaru Ammal. Their case was that the husband of Bangaru Ammal had executed a will bequeathing the properties in favour of Andalammal, who, in turn, sold it to the contesting respondents. Bangaru Ammal died pending her suit for possession, and the petitioners, claiming as the universal legatees under a will executed by Bangaru Ammal, filed an application under Order 22, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, to bring them on record in the place of the deceased Bangaru Ammal. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the Application.2. I am unable to understand the judgment of the learned District Munsif. At the present moment the only question fo...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vedachala Mudaliar and anr. Vs. S. Rangaraju Naidu
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad457; [1960]39ITR308(Mad)
(1) The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree dated 30th November 1955, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai, in O. S. No. 7 of 1954, on his file.(2) The plaintiff and the defendant's father, Srinivasalu Naidu, were doing business as partners until Srinivasalu Naidu's death, on 19th September 1942. After his death, the defendant was admitted to the partnership in his father's stead. The main business of the firm consisted in the sale of petrol and allied products as agents of Messrs. Burmah Shell Co. The firm had its headquarters at Pudukottai and branch at Karaikudi and other places. Though, on Srinivasalu Naidu's death, that partnership was, in law, dissolved, accounts were not settled and the assets and liabilities were taken over by the new firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were the partners. This partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act.It continued to do business until it was dissolved by agreement of parties on 17th January 1945...
Tag this Judgment!A.R.G.B. Balagurumurthy Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and or ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ48
(1) The only question raised in this appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by time. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,077-2-6 in the following circumstances. It is common ground that the plaintiff deposited sums of money with the defendants' family firm doing business in the name and style of A. R. G. Balarama Chettiar Sons with first defendant as Manager sometime in 1943 and 1944. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant firm and apparently the amounts were deposited in his capacity as an employee. The plaintiff left the service of the defendant firm in or about February 1951. On 18-2-1951 the first defendant on behalf of the family firm passed a letter to the plaintiff in the following terms: "On 13-4-1950 there is a credit of Rs. 7,244-1-3 in your name in our accounts".The plaintiff alleged that subsequent to the letter the defendants paid on different dates sums of money aggregating to Rs. 1,400 and there was still a sum of Rs. 7,077-2-6 due to him and in sp...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Mohammed HussaIn and Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ152; [1960]11STC362(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The petitioner is a licensed tanner doing business in Gudiyattam in the North Arcot District. He was assessed to sales tax in the year 1953-54 on a turnover of Rs. 1,82,711-2-9, which comprised a sum of Rs. 88,522 representing the value of untanned hides and skins which were purchased by the assessee and tanned in Chittoor and later exported to the United Kingdom. Chittoor was a part of the Madras State till 30th September, 1953; thereafter it became part of the Andhra Pradesh. The dispute relates to the turnover in respect of the goods tanned at Chittoor after 1st October, 1953. The contention of the assessee was that the hides and skins, though purchased in the State, if tanned outside the State, would be liable to be taxed only under the provisions of Rule 16(4) of the (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, that is, at the stage of sale by the first dealer after they were tanned and that, or in the present case, the tanned goods were exported to foregin countries, n...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.V. Moidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ923
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are two revision cases preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Coonoor, in S. T. R. Nos. 1737 and L738 of 1958.2. The facts are short and the point of law raised by the learned Advocate Sri T. Chengalvarayan, is an interesting one. The public transport vehicle, lorry K.L.D. 390, has got a permit to ply from Kundah to Ootacamund, But the route is via Korakundah and not Selas. On 25-7-1938, KLD. 690 was found being driven by the driver Moidu at that time, on a trip totally unconnected with its use under the permit granted to it, at Selas Bazar. It is admitted that via Selas is the shortest route to Ootacamund from Kundah. The driver Moidu and the owner Ayyappan have been charge-sheeted for an offence Under Section 42 (1) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and under Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Both of them were convicted and fined. Hen...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vedachala Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. S. Rangaraju Naidu
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ445
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree dated 30th November, 1955, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai, in Original Suit No. 7 of 1954 on his file.2. The plaintiff and the defendant's father, Srinivasalu Naidu, were doing business as partners until Srinivasalu Naidu's death, on 19th September, 1942. After his death, the defendant was admitted to the partnership in his father's stead. The main business of the firm consisted in the sale of petrol and allied products as agents of Messrs. Burmah Shell Company. The firm had its headquarters at Pudukottai and branch at Karaikudi and other places. Though, on Srinivasalu Naidu's death, that partnership was, in law, dissolved, accounts were not settled and the assets and liabilities were taken over by the new firm of which the plaintiff and defendant were the partners. This partnership was registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It continued to do business until it was dissolved by agreement of ...
Tag this Judgment!