Chennai Court October 1963 Judgments
Patel Md. Siddique Vs. H.H. the Prince of Arcot Endowment by Its Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ97
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the Rent Controller, Madras. The petitioner is a tenant of a non-residential building. The respondent originally filed an application for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he committed acts of waste on the property and by engaging masons and other persons he had dug the flooring of the shop to the depth of about three feet and removed the earth ; he had also demolished the front wall to the height of about three feet from the ground level and lowered the doorway. Therefore the landlord prayed that an order of eviction might be passed against the tenant directing him to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the shop bearing No. 683, Triplicane High Road, Triplican e, Madras. This petition was resisted by the petitioner-tenant that he did not commit acts of waste which had impaired the value of the property and that, on the other hand, he had effected certain repairs which were long overdue a...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopal Pillai Vs. Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ238
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of M.P. No. 7 of 1961 in Petition No. 1477 of 1960 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. The petitioner herein is the tenant, and he is the father of the Respondent herein who originally filed P. No. 1477 of 1960 against his father, the tenant, for his eviction, on the ground that there were arrears of rent. There was partition between the father and his sons and the suit property fell to the share of the respondent and the father, that is, the petitioner herein took it on lease but did not pay the rent due, and hence the son filed the application for eviction. In that eviction petition, the tenant was asked to deposit Rs. 91-16 into Court on or before 10th December, 1960, failing which he would stand evicted from the suit land. According to the case of the petitioner herein, it seems he went to Court on 10oth December, 1960 with the money but as the Court was not sitting that day, he returned without depositing t...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Nattar Vs. HussaIn Moideen Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ386
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the landlord who filed an application for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he required the suit shop for the purpose of carrying on a wholesale business in paddy and grains which he had started before the purchase of the premises. The allegations in his petition are following. He is a native of Cuddalore. He has two brothers one of whom is: residing in Cuddalore and the other in Chidambaram. He is having a flourishing, trade in Singapore. His wife is also a native of Cuddalore and he married her in 1954. His brother is doing business at No. 182. West Car Street, Chidambaram. In order to settle his family he has purchased a house at Chidambaram for Rs. 23,00a and the shop from which he seeks to evict the respondent for Rs. 9,100. It is his desire that he should carry on a business of his own in that shop at Chidambaram. He further alleged that there was wilful default on the part of the respondent in the payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Ambalam Vs. Ayya Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad435; (1965)1MLJ75
(1) This civil revision petition raises a question of law regarding the scope of S. 24 C.P.C. in its application to proceedings in execution.(2) A decree was passed in O. S. 1 of 1962 by the Sub Court, Dindigul in the Madurai Dt. The execution proceedings were initiated in that court, and since the property to be proceeded against was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Savaging, in the Ramanathapuram Dt., the decree was transferred to the Sub Court, Sivaganga, in following the procedure indicated in S. 39 C.P.C., read with O. XXI Rules 5 and 8 C.P.C. Thereafter some allegations were made about the propriety of the execution being continued in the Sub Court, Sivaganga, because of the manner in which adjournments were being granted by the Subordinate Judge, while dealing with the execution petition. The decree-holder filed a petition before the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, under S. 24 C.P.C. for transfer and after hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Rm. Ct. Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ61
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The following question stands referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act:Whether sums of Rs. 9,000, Rs. 8,133 and Rs. 1,550 received by the assessee as Managing Director's remuneration, commission and sitting fees are assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family of which Palaniappa Chettiar is the Kartha ?2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of father and his four major sons. The father, Palaniappa Chettiar, is the family manager. In the year 1934, the family acquired 90 shares in a private limited company called the Trichy Srirangam Transport Company (Private) Limited. The Company issued in all 300 shares. The shares were purchased in the name of Palaniappa, the manager of the family ; but there is no dispute that the value of the shares was paid from and out of the family funds. There were four shareholders in this company, two of whom were Directors. On the death of one of the Direc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. Rm. Ct. Pl. Palaniappa Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1963
Reported in: [1964]53ITR581(Mad)
JAGADISAN J - the following question stands referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether sums of Rs. 9,000, Rs. 8,133 and Rs. 1,550 received by the assessee as managing directors remuneration, commission and sitting fees are assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family of which Palaniappa Chettiar is the Karta ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of a father and his four major sons. The father, Palaniappa Chettiar, is the family manager. In the year 1934, the family acquired 90 shares in a private limited company called the Trichy-Srirangam Transport Company (P.) Ltd. The company issued in all 300 shares. The shares were purchased in the name of Palaniappa, the manager of the family; but there is no dispute that the value of the shares was paid from and out of the family funds. There were for holders in this company, two of whom were directors. On the death of one of the directors, Palaniappa become ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Mohamed HussaIn Sahib Vs. the Chartered Bank, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad266
(1) Suit in forma pauperis to recover rupees twelve lakhs as damages from the first defendant with future interest and costs.(2) The plaintiff was a leading merchant in hides and skins in Madras with an average annual turnover of nearly rupees fifty lakhs. He possessed a very valuable, well-mechanised tannery at Vaniyambadi, and he had built up a reputation for his goods both in India and outside. He was a customer of the first defendant and he had an overdraft account with the Bank. The plaintiff had 13, 599-8s to his credit in the Head Office of the first defendant Bank in London and he requested the first defendant to get the amount from the Head Office. The amount was admittedly transferred to the branch office of the Chartered Bank at Karachi by the first defendant on the instructions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is that be trusted the integrity and business skill of the first defendant and constituted it as his agent with reference to his dealings with the said moneys ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. P. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad258; 1964CriLJ672
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, of an offence Under Section 295-A, I. P. C.2. The respondent was the printer and publisher of the Tamil Weekly, 'Nathikam'. He published three articles in Nathiksm on 16-12-1960, 6-1-1951 and 13-1-1961 under the caption 'Allavin Thandanaiyil Alangolam.' The case for the prosecution is that these articles were published within deliberate and malicious intention of out raging the religious feeling of the Muslims. The purport of the two articles which are relied on by the prosecution is given below.3. The first article, which appeared in the issue of 16-12-1960, dealt with the punishment of stoning to death prescribed in Koran to persons found guilty of' adultery. The writer criticised the punishment prescribe for the offence and commented that there was inconsistency in the Koran which had made provision for divorce and remarr...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. P. Ramasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ147
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras, of an offence under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondent was the printer and publisher of the Tamil Weekly 'Nathikam'. He published three articles in Nathikam on 16th December, 1960, 6th January, 1961 and 12th January, 1961 under the caption 'Allavin Thandanaiyil Alangolam.' The case for the prosecution is that these articles were published with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feeling of the Muslims. The purport of the two articles which are relied on by the prosecution is given below.3. The first article, which appeared in the issue of 16th December, 1960, dealt with the punishment of stoning to death prescribed in Koran to persons found guilty of adultery. The writer criticised the punishment prescribed for the offence and commented that there was inconsistency in the Koran which had made provision for divor...
Tag this Judgment!R.G.S. Naidu and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ3
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The following question has been referred to us under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 72,315 in the assessable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54 2. The assessee is a firm of partnership carrying on business as Managing Agents of a textile mill at Coimbatore called ' The Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Company, Ltd.'. It will be convenient to refer to the managed company in this judgment as the company. The assessee firm was appointed as managing agents for a period of twenty years from 1st October, 1944. Clause (3) of the Managing Agency Agreement provided the following remuneration for/the services to be rendered by the Managing Agents:(a) an office remuneration of Rs. 1,500 per mensem ;(b) a commission at the rate of 1 per cent. on all purchases of cotton and stores and 2 per cent. on all capital expendi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »