Chennai Court November 1965 Judgments
G. Balusamy Naidu Vs. Election Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ28
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Election Court, Udumalpet, setting aside the election of the petitioner.2. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 contested for a seat from Ward No. 3 to Pudupalayam Panchayat in the General Elections held on 2nd February, 1965. At the time of scrutiny of nominations an abjection was raised by the second respondent that the petitioner was disqualified by reason of his having a subsisting contract with the Panchayat within the purview of Section 25(2) of the Madras-Panchayats Act, 1958 which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. This objection, was overruled and, in the subsequent poll, the petitioner was declared elected. Impugning this election the second respondent filed a petition under Rule 11(c) of the Rules for Decision of Election Disputes Relating to Panchayats. This objection as to the petitioner's disqualification prevailed with the Election Court with the result that ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. N. V. Shanmugam and Co. and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR701(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - This reference relates to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the accounting period being from September 1, 1956. There was one N. V. Shanmugam & Co., a firm of partnership, carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of snuff under a deed of partnership dated April 20, 1955. There were four partners, one of whom was a minor. There was a provision in the deed of partnership, that the firm could not be dissolved before August 31, 1955, but parties could arrange for the continuance of the business by entering into fresh partnership on fresh terms and conditions. On September 17, 1956, one of the partners, S. P. Ramiah Nadar, instituted a suit on the file of the city Civil Court at Madras praying for a declaration that the partnership stood dissolved as from September 1, 1956, and for accounts of the assets and liabilities of the partnership. He also asked for appointment of a receiver for taking charge of the assets and liabilities of the partnership and for c...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Shaik Mohammed Shah Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad454
ORDER(1) The petitioner is an allottee of a portion in premises No. 63 Angappa Naicken Street. It appears that this premises was originally allotted to the third respondent, a Government servant. On his expressing his willingness to let out a portion as the entire house was too large for his then requirements, Government took back a portion of the house and allotted it to the petitioner who is also a Government servant. The arrangement seems to have been that the third respondent used to collect the rent for this portion from the petitioner and pay it over the landlord. According to the petitioner, certain personal disputes arose between himself and the third respondent moved the Accommodation Controller for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner and the allotment of the entire house to himself. Orders appear to have been passed accepting the need of the third respondent for the occupation of the entire house. The result was that the allotment in favour of the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Varatharajulu Reddiar Vs. Venkatakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ342
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision arises out of proceedings in a suit Original Suit No. 78 of 1955, Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore, for partition of joint family properties, the plaintiff being the petitioner herein. On the 7th of August, 1959. a compromise decree was passed in the suit. It purported to be final decree. Under Clause (1) of the decree, besides the portion of a house marked in the plan attached to the compromise, the lands specified in schedule-A to the compromise were allotted absolutely to the plaintiff for his share and interest in the joint family properties. Under Clause (3) the marked portion of premises in the plan showing the old terraced house, site, etc., and the B Schedule lands with wells, etc., were allotted absolutely to defendants 1 to 3 for their share and interest in the joint family properties. There are provisions in the compromise regarding the crops on the lands, trees, engines, jewels, life-stock, etc. It is needless to refer to the details ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Kothandaraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad143
Veeraswami, J.(1) The assessee is the Managing Director of a Public Limited Company called 'Transformer and Switchgear Ltd.'. He was the promoter of the Company and would appear to have established contacts with experts in a German Concern in the particular type of business. The Company was incorporated on November 28, 1956, Article 106 of the memorandum and Articles of Association provided for the appointment of the assessee as the Managing Director of the Company for a period of five years subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors and upon the terms, provisions and conditions as to remuneration and management as specified in the agreement to be executed between them. Pursuant to this Article they did enter into an agreement on May 22, 1957. The preamble referred to the services of the assessee in promoting the Company and his experience in the line of the business and by Clause (1) he was appointed as the Managing Director of the Company for a period of five ye...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Kothandaraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ473
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The assessee is the managing director of a public limited company called ' Transformer and Switchgear Ltd.'. He was the promoter of the company and would appear to have established contacts with experts in a German concern in the particular type of business. The company was incorporated on 28th November, 1956. Article 106 of the memorandum and articles of association provided for the appointment of the assessee as the managing director of the company for a period of five years subject to the control and supervision of the Board of Directors and upon the terms, provisions and conditions as to remuneration and management as specified in the agreement to be executed between them. Pursuant to this article, they did enter into an agreement on 22nd May, 1957. The preamble referred to the services of the assessee in promoting the company and his experience in the line of business and by Clause (1) he was appointed as the managing director of the company for a period of fiv...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ranganatha Sastri and Another (Executors to the Estate of the Late ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR783(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the question referred to us is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the two house properties at Rutland Gate and Balajinagar, standing in the name of Srimathi Gaja Gowri Ammal, widow of the deceased, was properly included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased ?'R. Subbaiah Naidu died on January 30, 1957, leaving his second wife and a will by which he had appointed two executors, who are the accountable persons. The estate of the deceased was valued for purpose of estate duty and in the principal value was included, by the Assistant Controller, the value of two houses together with their relative sites. On appeal, this inclusion was confirmed. At the appellate stage, the revenue proceeded on the basis that the two houses, together with the sites, were the subject matter of gifts made by the deceased to his second wife. The question of benami, whi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Jeevanlal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1150
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. This is a petition by the accused in C.C. No. 18572 of 1964 on the file of the IV Presidency Magistrate, G.T. Madras, to revise the order of the IV Presidency Magistrate rejecting their application that they cannot be tried under Section 409 I.P.C., having regard to the provisions contained in the Pawn Brokers Act.2. The learned IV Presidency Magistrate has, on the charge-sheet filed by the police, framed three charges against the petitioners under Section 409 I.P.C. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the offence with which they were charged is punishable under Section 16(7) of the Pawn Brokers Act, and that the special provisions of the Pawn Brokers Act override the general provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In my opinion the learned IV Presidency Magistrate has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners.3. The learned advocate for the petitioners relied on Gopal Ji v. Shree Chand (S) : AIR1955All28 in support of his conte...
Tag this Judgment!Kothanda Pillai Vs. Devaraja Reddy (Dead) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad434
ORDER(1) This is a landlord's petition to revise an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet Dn, by which he accepted a preliminary objection from the respondent-tenant based on S. 4-A(5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 and dismissed the landlord's petition for resumption of the holding. The Revenue Divisional Officer did so on the strength of Natesa Pillai v. Mahalinga Padayachi 1961 2 MLJ 246. (2) So far as the principle of law is concerned, no exception could be taken to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. S. 4-A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act 1955 confers on the landlords a limited right to resume land for personal cultivation. Sub-sec. (4) qualifies his right which he can exercise only if he does not own in excess of 13-1/3 acres of wet land or has not been assessed to any sales tax, profession tax or income-tax under the laws relating to the levy of such taxes during 1954-55 or 1955-56. Sub-sec. (5) reads as follows: 'No p...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. Vs. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: [1966]18STC479(Mad)
Chandra Reddy, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Veeraswami, J., declining to remove on certiorari the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kanyakumari, which was ultimately confirmed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The material facts as emerge from the records are as follows : Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company (appellants here) sold in 1957-58, 84,200 gallons of petrol and 1,70,600 gallons of diesel oil to the State Transport Department, Nagercoil, for its own consumption pursuant to an indent for its requirements on Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company at Trivandrum. On the directions of the Madras company, the Trivandrum depot supplied the motor spirit to the Transport Department at the pump located in the workshop at Nagercoil. The bills were issued by the Madras office and passed for payment by the Accounts Officer of the Transport Department at Madras. These sales were treated as reta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »