Chennai Court March 1962 Judgments
T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR731(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act and the question that has been referred to us is as follows :'Whether the assessment of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15,232 is legal ?'The assessee, a private limited company, advanced a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs in 1954 to one Ramaswami Naidu. It is alleged that this amount was lent to Ramaswami Naidu with a view to enable him to acquire 4,000 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in Kadiri Mills Ltd., and to enable him to obtain a 6 annas share in the firm of Messrs. Krishna & Co., who are the managing agents of the mills. It is now common ground that this loan was repaid by Ramaswami Naidu to the assessee partly in cash and partly by transfer of 2,000 shares of the Kadiri Mills Ltd. valued at Rs. 3 lakhs.The assessee and Ramaswami Naidu entered into an agreement, the terms whereof were reduced to writing and embodied in an instrument dated October 30, 1956. We shall refer to the terms of the agreement in detai...
Tag this Judgment!Palanivel Goundan and ors. Vs. Muthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad131
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The second appeal is by the three plaintiffs in the courts below, who sued for a certain declaration of right and consequential permanent and mandatory injunctions relating to that right to take surplus water overflowing from the tank marked 'T' in the plan, as also the rain water from the natham site marked 'N' along the channel marked 'B' to the pond or kuttai marked 'K', which is the private source of irrigation for the lands of the plaintiffs immediately to the south of that kuttai. The sole ground for determination in the second appeal is the manner in which these rights claimed by the plaintiffs are to be declared, delimited and decreed.2. I might immediately state that the learned District Munsif of Namakkal, who tried this suit, apparently felt no difficulty in the matter. He decreed the suit for declaration and a permanent injunction as prayed for, holding that, as regards the mandatory injunction, there was really no need. The entire difficulty arises fr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Kulvant Rai Vs. F.E. Hardcastle and Co. (P.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad103
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a civil revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. to revise the order of the learned City Civil Judge(Vth Assistant) Madras, directing the issue of a letter of request to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, to appoint a Commissioner to examine a witness.2. The first defendant in the suit, 0. S. No. 2280 of 1957, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, which is a private limited company, applied for the issue of a commission under Order 26 Rule 4, C. P. C. to have the evidence of its manager recorded by a Commissioner at Bombay. The suit relates to an insurance claim by the plaintiff against the several defendants in the suit, me 2nd defendant is the Insurance Company of which the first defendant is alleged to be the agent settling the insurance claims. The third defendant is the shipping company owning the steamer S. S. 'Astra' which carried the goods from Naples to Madras, in respect o! which the suit claim is launched. The 4th defen...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Kulvant Rai Vs. F.E. Hardcastle and Co. (Private) Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ490
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code to revise the order of the learned City Civil Judge (Fifth Assistant), Madras, directing the issue of a letter of request to the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes at Bombay, to appoint a Commissioner to examine a witness.2. The first defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 2280 of 1957, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, which is a private limited company, applied for the issue of a commission under Order 26, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, to have the evidence of its manager recorded by a Commissioner at Bombay. The suit relates to an insurance claim by the plaintiff against the several defendants in the suit. The second defendant is the Insurance Company of which the first defendant is alleged to be the agent settling the insurance claims. The third defendant is the shipping company owning the steamer ' S.S. Astra ' which carried the goods from Naples to Madras, in respect of which the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Vs. Andi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad74
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. This appeal involves a question of considerable interest, with regard to the legal consequences of a right to property whichincludes the foreshore of the sea as one of its boundaries. The facts are as follows:2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit in the court of the District Munsif of Ramanathapuram for a declaration of title, possession and future mesne profits. The defendants appear to be fishermen who own properties to the east and west of the particular item, which is the subject-matter of the present dispute (item 3). This item 3 has, according to the title advanced by the plaintiffs, in the trial court, the seashore as its southern boundary. As far as this item was concerned, the defendants allege that they had been using the area which is the subject of dispute for drying fish and for keeping their, nets and the boats used for fishing. They also allege that they had planted some coconut trees, in a small portion of this area. On this aspect, the trial court ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramasamy Nadar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Divisio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC912(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is to direct the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division, to forebear from enforcing Rule 25 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. That rule requires every registered dealer who transacts business at places other than his registered place of business or employs a travelling salesman or representative to transact business as aforesaid to apply for a permit authorising himself or as the case may be the travelling salesman or representative so to do. The rest of the provisions of this rule provide for the procedure for making applications, licence fee and renewals of permits. For the year 1959-60 the petitioner was required under this rule to take out permits for himself and his travelling salesman in coffee powder. The petitioner challenges this requisition on the ground, inter alia, that Rule 25 is invalid for the reason that it is in excess of the rule-making power of the Government under Section 53 of the Madras Gene...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Purushotham Vs. General Manager, Southern Rly.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad35
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash the order of the respondent, dated 14-7-1959, informing the petitioner that his services were no longer required by the railway administration with effect from the forenoon of July 15, 1959. He was further informed that he would be paid one month's pay in lieu of termination. This order was passed by the respondent in exercise of its powers under Rule 148 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The petitioner is stated to have entered railway service on 1-2-1935, and, in 1945, he was promoted as a driver and confirmed in that post in October 1946. On 1-4-1948, he was placed under suspension pending certain action to be taken by the railway administration. On 23-10-1951, he was asked to show cause why his services should not be terminated under Rule 3 of the Railway Service (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, on the ground that he was believed to have engaged himself In subversive activi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Represented by Director of Govt. Transport Vs. Mohamed ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad39
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Third Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in O. S. No. 1147 of 1956. The plaintiff in the suit is the State ofi Madras represented by the Director of Government Transport, Madras. The suit property is room No. 1, South Block, Body Guard Lines, Transport House, Mount Road, Madras. The premises belonged originally to the Government of India, in the Military department. They were used as residential lines by the Body-guard sepoys of the Governor of Madras. In 1900, the premises were transferred from the Military Department of the Government of India to the Provincial Government. Sometime after 1900, the Muslim troops who then occupied the Body-guard lines created a small building in the compound for offering prayers. Another small building was also put up for the residence of the Mullah who offered prayers. In or about 1904-1905, the new lines of buildings called Sepoys' quarters in thre...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Director of Government Transpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ510
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Third Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 1147 of 1956. The plaintiff in the suit is the State of Madras represented by the Director of Government Transport, Madras. The suit property is Room No. 1 South Block, Body Guard Lines, Transport House, Mount Road, Madras. The premises belonged originally to the Government of India, in the Military Department. They were used as residential lines by the Bodyguard Sepoys of the Governor of Madras. In 1900, the premises were transferred from the Military Department of the Government of India to the Provincial Government. Sometime after 1900 the Muslim Troops who then occupied the Bodyguard lines erected a small building in the compound for offering prayers. Another small building was also put up for the residence of the Mullah who offered prayers. In or about 1904-1905, the new lines of buildings called Sepoys' quarters in three bloc...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Sivagaminatha Pillai Vs. N.K.S. Dharmalinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad21
Kailasam, J. 1. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit on a mortgage bond dated 14-3-1934 executed by one Sankaran Chettiar on his behalf and on behalf of his brother and minor sons, who are defendants 1 and 2, in favour of one Punnavanam and Subbiah Pillai. The mortgage provided that the amount was payable on 14-7-1938. Sankaran Chettiar sold item 1 in Schedule B to the plaint to the third defendant under Ex. B-3 dated 21-2-1942. One of the mortgagees Punnavanam gave a notice, Ex. A-4, on 26-9-1946 to Sankaran Chettiar claiming that he was entitled to the entire mortgage money. On 5-2-1947 under Ex. A-2 Punnaivanam, one of the mortgagees, assigned the entire mortgage right to plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4750. The mortgagor Sankaran Che-ttiar sold to the plaintiff one item of the property mortgaged on 13-8-1949. Two questions were raised in this second appeal by Mr. Ramanujam, the learned counsel for the appellant-third defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »