Chennai Court March 1963 Judgments
State of Madras Represented by Secy. of Govt. Home Dept. Vs. A.V. Anan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad425; (1963)IILLJ584Mad
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The facts necessary for a due consideration of that question are these. The respondent was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Orathanad in Tan-jore Dt. till 6-11-1948, on which date seven chargeg-of corruption were framed against him by the appropriate authority and he was placed under suspension. As a result of the enquiry that followed the charges were held proved and the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed the order dated 9-4-1950 dismissing him from service. After exhausting the remedies available to him by way of appeal to the Inspector General of Police and a memorial to the Government, both of which proved futile, the respondent initiated proceedings in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Initially that met with no success as the petition (W. P. No. 844 of 1951) as well as an appeal from the judgment therein (W. A. No. 51 of 1955) were dismissed. The order in the appeal was passed ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Viswanatha Pandaram and Co., Represented by Its Managing Partner, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad49
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, directing the appellant, the decreeholder in O.S. No. 76 of 1956, to proceed by way of suit to establish his right to attach certain moneys which were originally in deposit with the Canara Bank Ltd.On 23rd August 1955, the appellants in titued the suit for recovery of Rs. 13,300, against one Sarajmal Ganeshmal Bhansali. On the same day, an application was filed for attachment before judgment of a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the hands of the Canara Bank Ltd, at Salem, as belonging to the debtor. There was an interim prohibitory order. The garnishee, viz., the Canara Rank Ltd., tiled a counter-statement, stating that the money did not belong to the debtor, but to the Lakshmi Bank Ltd., which was carrying en business in the Bombay State. Notice was thereupon issued to Lakshmi Bank Ltd., under the provisions of Order 21, rule 46-D. Lakshmi Bank Ltd. appeared and claimed that the money belonged to it. Und...
Tag this Judgment!Arnlayi Nadachi and anr. Vs. Jagadeesiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad122
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted for redemption and partition. The claim is now1 concerned only with regard to the title to item No. 1 of the properties set out in the plaint, namely, S. No. 8603, originally Lakkom 332, covering an extent of 1-47 acres.2. Defendants 3 and 6 are the appellants. For a proper appreciation of the question involved in this appeal it will be necessary to advert briefly to the tangled history of the various transactions with respect to the property which originally belonged to one Gunamudayan. He had two wives. By the first wife he had a son, Aseervatham. By his second wife, who was named Nakshathram, he had two sons, the elder of whom died before the Travancore Christian Succession Act came into force and whose rights devolved on his death on his younger brother Yovan alias John, whom we shall hereafter refer to as John. (Sr.). His son, John (Jr.) was the first plaintiff in the suit, -the second plaintiff being a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vs. M., T. V. D. and Co. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1963
Reported in: [1963]50ITR23(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question which stands referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Act is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs. 48,444 should be assessed to tax under section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee, which is a firm consisting of two partners, was operating transport buses. It had twenty-four route buses. The assessment year in question is 1949-50, the relevant accounting year being the calendar year 1948. On April 14, 1948, the assessee sold three buses to one Subramania Mudaliar. On July 9, 1948, the business was closed. Ten buses were sold to one Dhanmul Sowcar and the sale proceeds were received on July 8, 1948. It is stated that the remaining buses were distributed between the two partners as part of the division of assets of the dissolved partnership.It is not in dispute that on the basis of the written down value of the buses there was a profit on the sale of the ten buses to Dhan...
Tag this Judgment!N. Pethu Reddiar Vs. V.A. Muthiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad390; (1963)2MLJ1
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 at the instance of a defeated candidate against the order of the Election Tribunal (District Judge) Tiruchirapalli, dismissing his application to have the election set aside.2. At the recent general election to the Madras legislative assembly from Uppiliapuram constituency in Musiri taluk, Tiruchirapalli Dt. held on 19-2-1962, three candidates, namely, the first respondent, the appellant and the second respondent contested. The counting of votes took place on 25-2-1962. We give below the candidates, their party affiliation with the symbols relative thereto and the votes secured by them:First respondent Congress Two bullocks with a yoke on 29435 votes Appellant D. M. K. Rising sun 29077 votes Second respondent Independent Lion 3766 votes Invalid votes 2663 votes3. The first respondent who secured the highest number of votes, the majority over his nearest rival being 358 votes...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.R.Y. Ramakrishna Prasad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ395
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants are accused 2 and 3 in C. C. Nos. 5050 and 5051 of 1961 on the file of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. They were Directors of the first accused firm Sarathi Films Private Ltd. They have been convicted along with the first accused firm Under Section 159 read with Section 162 of the Companies Act in C. C. 5050 of 1961 for failure to submit annual return and Under Section 220 (t) read with Section 220 (3) of the Companies Act in C. C. No. 5051 of 1961, for failure to submit balance-sheet and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to simple imprisonment for three months each on each count. The appeals have been preferred by accused 2 and 3 alone and not by the firm.2. The only point for determination in these appeals is whether the appellants ceased to be Directors and were not liable to submit annual return or balance-sheet. Sarathi Films Private Ltd., was incorporated as a private company limited by share capital under the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb Vs. A. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ112
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been placed before a Division Bench in view of conflict of judicial opinion regarding the proper interpretation of the provisions of Section 7(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. Venkatadri, J., who heard the petition in the first instance, has referred to three decisions of single Judges of this Court, in his order of reference and, has observed that they manifest diversity of views on the subject.2. We shall first set out the facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Petition before discussing the question of law raised in the case. It will be convenient to refer to the petitioner as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord in this judgment. The Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (XXV of 1949) will hereafter be referred to as the Act. The landlord is the owner of a building in the Municipal Town of Erode which consists of one block. A plan has been filed before us and it can be re...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Naidu and anr. Vs. Jayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad353
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. The appeal is instituted by the defendants in the Court below (the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli) in a suit for recovery of possession and future mesne profits, which was' decreed as prayed for. In view of the interesting issue that has been raised in this appeal, by learned counsel for the appellants (Sri K. Rajah Iyer) of the application of the principle of adverse possession to a person in a fiduciary capacity, who had not acquitted himself by re-delivering the property to the representative of the trust, it is important to proceed into the precise facts in some detail.2. A certain Venkatarama Naidu had two sons, namely, Veerasami Naidu, who died in 1921, and Vengama Naidu, who died m 1924. Vengama Naidu had a son Govindaraja, who died in 1941, and a daughter, Seethammal, who died in 1943. This Govindaraja had a first wife, Jayammal, by whom he had a son, Venugopal, who died as a minor in January 1945; it will be pertinent to state t...
Tag this Judgment!C.T.A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. M.G. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad236
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appeal is upon a very short point. The executing decree-holder in O.S. No. 53 of 1947 is the appellant and he filed E. A. No. 194 of 1960 in a pending execution petition, for the relief of attaching certain money due from a debtor of the judgment debtor, on the averment that the existence of this claim came to the knowledge of the executing decree-holder only recently. The learned subordinate Judge dismissed the execution application, both on the ground that it was presented a little beyond the time prescribed by return, which is admittedly technical, and on the ground that the relief sought for was virtually an introduction of a fresh execution petition, which could not be permitted. The second ground alone concerns us now, since the first ground is purely formal and technical in nature.2. With regard to the second ground, learned counsel for respondent (judgment debtor) relies upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Venkatalingama Nayanim v. Venkata Nara...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Vs. Carriage Works Canteen, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC654(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The State is the petitioner and the revision is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that the sale of foodstuffs by the Carriage Works Canteen, Southern Railway, Perambur, is not in the course of business, thereby making the Canteen a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. On the admitted position that the Carriage Works Canteen of the Southern Railway was under a statutory duty imposed upon it by the Factories Act to provide foodstuffs to its workers on a non-profit basis, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that a business which has no profit motive as its basis cannot be regarded as a business for the purpose of the Sales Tax Act and that a person who carries on such an activity cannot be regarded as a 'dealer' carrying on business.2. We are unable to agree with the learned Government Pleader that the view of the Tribunal is in any way erroneous. Though the Tribunal does not refer to any other decided...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »