Chennai Court February 1963 Judgments
Kothari Mehta and Co. (Pte.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR753(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessees are the managing agents of a public limited company, the Investment Trust of India Ltd. The assessments of the assessee company for the years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 were reopened under section 34(1)(b) of the Act for the reason that at the time of the original assessments of the company, the company had not returned as part of its income the managing agency commission which had accrued to it. The assessee company disputed the action under section 34(1)(b) contending that the assessee had waived the amounts that would have been due to it under the managing agency agreement for the three years in question. This contention was repelled by the Income-tax Officer, who held that the managing agency commission had accrued to the company and that the alleged waiver amounted only to a gift. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was urged that the assessee company waived the managing agency commission due to it in order to strengthen the finances of t...
Tag this Judgment!Murlimal Santram and Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad380; [1963]49ITR858(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner in these petitions is a certain private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is called Murlimal Santram and Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. It consists of eleven shareholders, and, these shareholders fall into two groups. One group consists of the members of the family of one Srikishandas Murlimal' and the other group consists of the members of the family of one D. B. Futanani. There are five directors of the company three of whom belong to Futanani group and the other two belong to Srikishandas group. It appears that there is no love lost between the two groups and they have been quarrelling over the affairs of the company. The directors of the Futanani group resolved at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on 14-5-1953 to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the company on 16th July 1953 to pass a resolution enabling the directors of the company to draw a remuneration of Rs. 1000 per mensem commencing on and from 1st of J...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaganesan Pillai and ors. Vs. Rajah Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad53
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal poses for determination a question as to the competency of the executing court to direct fresh delivery of immoveable property there having been earlier a symbolical one. The reference to the Full Bench was occasioned by a doubt felt as to the correctness of the decision in Manager of Sri Meenakshi Devastanam, Madura v. Abdul Kasim Sahib, ILR 30 Mad 421. But in the view we are disposed to take of the appellants' right to dispute the authority of the court to grant the relief sought a consideration of that decision in detail has become unnecessary.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these. The appellants are the sons of the third respondent. The Kumbakonam Bank Ltd., obtained a decree for a large sum of money against them. The trial court in addition granted relief as against the share of the third respondent (one-fourth) in a house belonging to the family, and which had been given as security to the loan. Under the decr...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Srinivasa Iyer Vs. the Joint Official Liquidators of Nurani Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad464; [1963]33CompCas735(Mad)
Venkataraman, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a misfeasance application (Appln. No. 420 of 1952) filed by theJoint Official Liquidators of the Nurani Union Bank Ltd. Palghat (in liquidation) under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Act VII of 1913) seeking to make the seven respondents in that application pay a sum of Rs. 9,19,884-5-0. The seven persons who were impleaded as respondents in the application were directors of the company. The first respondent in that application N.R. Lakshmana Iyer was the Managing Director and the seventh respondent K.N. Ramalinga Iyer was the secretary.The application was tried by Ramaswami J. who held that the misfeasance had been proved. Respondents 3 and 4 in that application had died before the decision, and in the view that Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act was a summary procedure, available only against the directors themselves and not their legal representatives, no order for compensation was made in respect of those two r...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Swaminathan Vs. Angayarkanni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad11
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. In my opinion, this petition cannot be ordered. The petitioner is the only son of V. Nadimuthu Pillai, who died on 26th October 1954. The petitioner's date of birth is stated to be 25th June 1944 and he is said to have completed 18 years of age as on 25th June 1962. On O. P. Nos. 323 and 35 of 1955, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, the first respondent was appointed as his personal guardian. But on appeal this Court in C. M. A. No. 14 etc., of 1956, by a consent order, appointed the first two respondents as joint personal guardians of the petitioner It appears further from the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the petitioner has been residing in the family house at Tanjore with his grandmother and is now studying in the B. A. class in the Rajah Serfoji College, Tanjore. He says that he took charge of his estate on 16th September 1962 from the third respondent, who was appointed as executor by his father in his will dated 9...
Tag this Judgment!Malabar Petroleum Co. by Partner K.V. Thomas Vs. Continental Oil Co. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad307; [1963]33CompCas367(Mad); (1963)2MLJ116
Veeraswami, J.1. This is an application, filed by the Official Liquidator for directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1013-70 being the amount equivalent to 1076 Frenchfrancs. This direction is sought on the basis of the order of this Court dated 23rd March, 1962 in Company Appln. No. 394 of 1961. In that order, this Court found that the explanation of the respondent was not acceptable in respect of the specified items of debits by the French company against the company in liquidation. In view of this order, there can be no question about the liability of the respondent. But the application is resisted on the ground that it is barred by time. Though it is filed under Section 460(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, it is contended for the respondent that if the claim is regarded as one arising out of misfeasance, Section 543(2) of the Companies Act prescribes a period of five years, and that if the claim is regarded as one falling within the purview of Section 469 of that Act, even so, ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Kanakasabapathi Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.V. Govindarajulu Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad219
Anantanarayanan, J.1. In this appeal by the two defendants in the Court below, in a suit for enforcement of specific performance of a contract of sale, not merely are the facts not in dispute, for the most part, but the parties also contended themselves at the trial with marking the essential documents and not adducing any oral evidence. The facts are as follows:A certain gentleman, Mr. Sri Hari Naidu, and his paternal grandmother Bhagirathi sold the suit properties to the defendants on 2-9-1948 under Ex B-l. On 9-9-1948 there was a registered agreement of reconveyance executed by the defendants (appellants) in favour of Mr. Sri Hari Naidu and three others, namely, his sister Jothi Bai, and Govindarajulu Naidu and Sudarsan Naidu (the latter two being the plaintiffs in the instant suit). The terms or the sale, dated 2-9-1948 are quite simple; that was a registered sale deed for Rs. 13000 in respect of the suit properties. The terms of the agreement to reconvey, Ex. A-l are of importance...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Kanakasabapathi Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.V. Govindarajulu Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ135
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. In this appeal by the two defendants in the Court below, in a suit for enforcement of specific performance of a contract of sale, not merely are the facts not in dispute, for the most part, but the parties also contented themselves at the trial with marking the essential documents and not adducing any oral evidence. The facts are as follows:2. A certain gentleman, Mr. Sri Hari Naidu, and his paternal grandmother Baghirathi sold the suit properties to the defendants on 2nd September, 1948, under Exhibit B-1. On 9th September, 1948, there was a registered agreement of reconveyance executed by the defendants (appellants) in favour of Mr. Sri Hari Naidu and three others, namely his sister Jothi Bai and Govindarajulu Naidu and Sudarsan Naidu (the latter two being the plaintiffs in the instant suit). The terms, of the sale dated and September, 1948 are quite simple ; that was a registered1 sale-deed for Rs. 13,000 in respect of the suit properties. The terms of the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›