Chennai Court July 1964 Judgments
D. Keethalingam and Co., Vijayapuram Vs. S.M. Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad23; (1965)2MLJ164
ORDER(1) This petition is filed by the defendant in S. C. S. No. 58 of 1959 for revising the order of the City Civil Court, Madras, holding that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1646-80 nP. for breach of a contract. The case for the plaintiff briefly is that the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff through one Anantaraman on 22-9-1958 for purchase of 40 tons of groundnut oil cake at Rs. 23-11-0 per bag f.o.r. Thiruvarur. The plaintiff contended that the defendant received the bank advice and patti for the goods, but failed to pay and take delivery of the goods contracted for and the plaintiff had to resell the same at Rs. 21-8-9 per bag being the then market value, thereby suffering a loss of Rs. 2-3-0 per bag. The plaintiff further claimed interest and demur rage, which he incurred. (2) The plea of the defendant was that he never authorised Anantaraman to enter into a contract on his behalf, that the defendant was not liable under the contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Dyeing and Bleaching Works Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1964
Reported in: [1964]15STC812(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The assessee purchased camphor sold by the Customs Department when they auctioned confiscated goods. He subsequently sold the camphor. Camphor is assessable at the point of first sale by dealer. The assessee contended that the Customs Authority was the first dealer. But the Department repelled that contention and holding that the Customs Authority's sales were not the first sales, assessed the assessee as the first dealer in camphor. This order was confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee now seeks revision against the above order.2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that these sales effected by the Customs Department are regular and periodic. He also referred to a recent decision of this Court reported in Fiaz Ahmed & Co. v. State of Madras, [1964] 15 S.T.C. 2001 where this Court observed that 'something has to be said for the view that the absence of profit motive does not mean that a business is not being carried on'. ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Mohammed Yusuf Rowther and anr. Vs. Abdul Razack and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad483; 1965CriLJ652
ORDER(1) Before proceeding to the facts of this criminal revision which involves a question I shall briefly refer to the legal principles which might be fairly characterised as applicable which might be fairly characterised as applicable to the facts. To constitute an offence of theft under S. 379 I.P.C., there must be a taking, with dishonest intention, of moveable property from the possession of another person, without the consent of that person. Now, intention is a state of mind, and direct proof of it may be impossible in most cases, it will have to be an inference of fact, from the entire complex of circumstances. Courts appear to have expressed variant views on the question whether, when the creditor seizes some moveable property of his debtor, without the consent of that debtor as an attempt to obtain security for the debt, such act of the creditor will amount to theft, or only to an illegal seizure of property, which may be a tort or civil wrong justifying an action in damages....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone, Madura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad445; [1965]57ITR569(Mad); (1965)1MLJ40
(1)This is a consolidated reference under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, the question referred for our opinion being common for the two years of assessment, 1957-58 and 1958-59. As formulated, the question is a rolled up one, the first part of it relating essentially to a finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, while the latter is a question of law. The substantial matter referred for our decision relates to the operative nature of two deeds of trust executed by the assessee on 1-4-1943 and 7-3-1956. The question, as referred, runs:"Whether the inference of the Tribunal that the trust was genuine and not revocable within the meaning of S. 16(1)(c) is legal ?"On behalf of the Department the case was presented to us on an alternative basis, viz., (1). There was no material for the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that he trusts established by the assessee on the two dates referred to above, were real or genuine ones; (2) Even if they were intended to be operative docume...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govindaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ44
Natesan, J.1. One Govindaswami, who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of his father, Kondathu Gounder, is the appellant.2. That Kondathu Gounder died of homicidal violence at the hands of the accused prisoner, is established beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record. The real question for consideration, however, is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the exemption provided in Section 84, I. P. C.3. The deceased, Kondathu Gounder, first married one Kaveri, by whom he had two daughters, Venkatammal and Saraswathi, and two sons, Govindaswami (accused) and Gopal (P. W. 5). The daughters are not yet married, On the death of Kaveri about 10 years prior to the occurrence, he married her sister, Rajammal (P. W. 1). P. W. 1 speaks to the relevant circumstances preceding the occurrence. The deceased is stated to have sold about 13 acres of fertile land of the family out of the 30 acres owned to P. W. 1, an...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Ramaswamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ314
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. The Sub Magistrate I, Madurai, convicted the petitioner Ramaswami Reddiar with a sentence of fine of Rs. 150 for an offence under Section 72(3) read with Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner is a lorry driver. The case against him was that while he was permitted to load in his lorry goods of the weight of 20160 lbs. he was found to have carried an excess load of 896 lbs on 2.11.1902, when P.W. 1 stopped him at about 11.40 p.m. in Madurai town. This certainly was an offence and the learned Sub Magistrate who tried the case convicted him with sentence as stated above. In appeal the District Magistrate, Madurai, confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. A point is urged before me in revision which I think I should uphold in the circumstances of this case. Rule 411 of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act states that police officers, not below the rank of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors of Motor Vehicles and Regional Transport Officers, are auth...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohamad Adam Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad247; [1965]56ITR360(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.(1) The assessee carries on the business of purchase and sale of snake skins. On 31-3-1953, at the end of the account year corresponding to the assessment year 1953-54, he held a certain stock of snake skins. Of these, some varieties, including crocodile skins, were valued at Rs. 53,016. There were a number of other skins, Cobra, Virian, etc., which the assessee did not value at all. These had been purchased during the course of the account year. During that year, Cobra skins found a market upto February 1953, but other varieties, of which also the assessee carried a stock but upon which he did not place any value, admittedly had virtually no sales at all. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that, all these varieties of skins, including Cobra, virian and baby, were saleable only in America and England, that they had no market whatsoever in India and that his foreign agents and representatives had informed him that there were no buyers f...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Adam, Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad391; [1965]56ITR605(Mad); (1965)1MLJ95
Srinivasan, J. (1) In this case, the assessee is a dealer in snake skins. For the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53, certain addition as have been made to his income. The basis of these additions is that he department refused to accept the assessee's contention that he had to reject a certain quantity of the tanned skins as unsuitable for sale. It is common ground that these snake skins find a market only abroad. The assessee claimed that after he had tanned his skins, he found certain of the skins were not upto standard. He therefore rejected them. The Income-tax Officer thought that the rejections were excessive. These rejections have been variously described in the orders of the officers below as shortages or wastages. But, it is not denied by the department at this stage that they represent rejections of unsaleable skins which were found to be not upto standard. It is also not in dispute that in spite of these rejections, the assessee's gross profit return was not low a...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara Goundar Vs. K.C. Senniappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad337
(1) The second defendant in the suit is the widow of one Kumaraswami Gounder, who is the elder brother of the first defendant-appellant. She executed a promissory note on 5-8-1954. The holder assigned the promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice to the promisor on 25-9-1954. On 2-10-1654 the 2nd defendant widow purported to execute a release deed in favour of the first defendant-appellant, brother of her husband. On the same day, a maintenance deed was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a suit upon the promissory note; but that suit was dismissed by the trial court. When the matter was pending in appeal, the parties compromised and there was a decree in the promissory note suit. The plaintiff, in execution of that decree, attached the suit properties as belonging to the husband of the 2nd defendant. The first defendant came in with a claim petition on the strength of the release deed. His case was ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venkataswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ217
Anantanarayanan, J.1. In a village called Ramalingapuram in Tirunelveli Dt. the villagers held a meeting and passed a resolution that cattle should not be permitted to graze in any of the lands situate to the east of the village till the end of the Tamil month Thai, when the harvest of crops would be completed. Subba Naicker, son of Lingava Naic-ker (P. W. 7) and S. Subba Naicker (P. W. 20) were appointed by these villagers as watchmen, cm a monthly salary, to enforce this decision. On 21-12-1962, the six accused before Court, all of whom are closely related to each other and accused 3, 4 and 5 among whom ate brothers, grazed about 150 sheep in the punja of Sangnva Naicker (P. W. 19) and the adjoining Punja field of Swami Naicker, the brother of .P.W. 21, both these fields.being situate in the prohibited area to the east of the Village.On a complaint by the two watchman (P. W. 7 and 20) a large number of villagers went there, in order to remonstrate with the accused; and to inn-pound t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »