Chennai Court September 1965 Judgments
Jagannatha Prasad Gupta Vs. E.S.R. Ranganatha Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad370
(1) The question that is raised is whether a petition to revise an order of the trial court vacating an order of interim injunction passed by it, is revisable by the High Court under S. 115 C.P.C. without the petitioner filing an appeal against the order to the District Court under O. 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. The petitioner, a tenant, filed O. S. 425 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Madurai Town, for setting aside an order directing his eviction in R. C. O. P. 352 of 1961 and for injunction restraining the respondent from executing the said order. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed I. A. 1763 of 1964 for an injunction restraining the respondent from taking execution proceedings pending disposal of the suit. Interim injunction was ordered on 28-9-1964. Injunction was made absolute on 17-12-1964. The respondent filed I. A. 529 of 1965 for dissolving the order of Injunction passed in I. A. 1763 of 1964 on the ground that the order of injunction was made on some mis...
Tag this Judgment!R.L. Sahni and Co. Vs. Union of India, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad416; (1966)IILLJ230Mad
(1) This appeal is brought against the judgment of Srinivasan J. declining to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner calling upon the appellant to make contribution to the employees' Provident Fund.(2) The appellant, a limited company which was incorporated on 27-4-1959, took on lease a building with equipment known as the Rajakumari Theatre from the owner thereof. This theatre was leased by the owner to one Om Prakash Gupta, and, on the expiry of the lease, the owner obtained possession of the property by instituting proceedings in the High Court. Thereafter lease of this theatre was granted to the appellant in June 1960, as stated above. When the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner required the appellant to make the contribution under the Employees Provident Funds Act from 15-6-1960, the date on which he started the cinema shows under the name and style of Sahani Cinema it was urged on behalf of the appellant that since the company newly started business only w...
Tag this Judgment!Peddu Reddiar Vs. Kothanda Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad419
(1) The first defendant is the appellant in the second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of items 1 to 7 of the A schedule to the plaint or in the alternative for a partition of the 15 items listed out in the B schedule to the plaint and for an allotment of a half share therein to the plaintiff. Items 1 to 7 of the A schedule are the items 1 to 7 of the B schedule. Items 8 to 15 of the B schedule are other items. The case of the plaintiff is that the 15 items listed out in the B schedule belonged to the brothers Peddu Reddi (first defendant) and Sanjeevi Reddi, that there was a division in status between them under Hindu law in 1939 but there had been no partition by metes and bounds. In 1947, under Ex. A. 2 dated 5-6-1957, Sanjeevi Reddi sold his undivided half share in all the 15 items to one Ellappa Reddi for Rs. 4000. The further case of the plaintiff is that sometime thereafter there was an oral arrangement between Ellappa Reddi, ...
Tag this Judgment!T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty by T.N.V. Nanjappa Chetty, Partner-landlord ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ465
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition by the landlord raises a question of construction of Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960). The premises in were purchased by T.N.K. Govindaraju Chetty, which is a firm of partnership at Madras. The respondents are tenants of these premises for a number of years. On the ground that one of the partners T.N.V. Nanjappa Chetty required the premises for his own occupation, the firm represented by him applied under Section 10(3)(a)(i) for the eviction of the respondents. The Rent Controller accepted the ground and finding that the requirement was bona fide ordered eviction. The lower appellate Court agreed with the Rent Controller as to the bona fide requirement. Nonetheless, it held that Section 10(3)(a)(i) would not apply to the case. Its view is that a firm not being a legal person cannot be said to reside in any place, and, therefore, the requirement of one of its partners cannot be considered to be the...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Seshadrinathan Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad258; [1966]60ITR482(Mad)
1. This matter was referred to Full Bench as, in the opinion of the Division Bench, an important question of law relating to the interpretation of Section 9(2)(a)(iii) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act was involved.(2) The facts giving rise to this reference lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows. The assessee and his minor son constituted a joint Hindu family in the year 1959. On 29-11-1959 the assessee settled on his wife an extent of 26 acres and 62 cents of land belonging to himself and his minor son out of a total extent of 281 acres and 51 cents. Four months later there was a partition of the property between the assessee and his son. For the assessment year 1961-62 the assessee submitted a composition application to the concerned Income-tax Officer in which he sought to exclude the property that was settled on his wife in November 1959. At the same time his wife filed another composition application in regard to the property that was given to her under t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ42
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. The petitioners in these cases have been convicted under Section 16(1) read with Section 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read along with Rule 44-A of the Rules framed under the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, in default to R. I. for two months. Rule 44-A provides that no person in any State shall, with effect from such date as the State Government concerned may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf, sell or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, under any description or for use as an ingredient in the preparation of any article of food intended for sale, kesari gram, kesari dal, etc.2. The reason for the rule is that kesari dal has been found to be a poisonous food grain as would appear from the following passage at page 698 of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, Twelfth Edition;Lathyrus Sativus (Kesari Dal, Teora or Butt...
Tag this Judgment!Edulla Saheb Mohamed Ghouse Vs. Madras State Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad439
(1) The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this second appeal, filed a suit for a declaration that the institution Hazarat Sha Rahamathulla Saheb Takya of Pakkiri Thaikkal and the suit properties in the plaintiff's management do not constitute a wakf under the Muslim Wakf Act.(2) In 1626 A. D. Rajashri Malaharji Godreo Saheb, the then Maharajah of Tanjore, made a sarvamanyam grant of the suit properties to an ancestor of the plaintiff by name Syed Sha Rahmatulla. The successors of Rahmatullah were in possession of the properties for nearly 300 years. In 1921, there were some disputes regarding the management of the properties, and O. S. 95 of 1921, was filed in the Subordinate judge's court, Mayuram, for removing Gulam Jailani and Mohamed Ghouse from the management of the properties and for framing a scheme. A scheme was framed and on appeal the High Court confirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the scheme in some respects. The High Court recognised the hereditary natur...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Gounder Vs. K.R. Easwaramurthi Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad437
(1) The 21st defendant is the appellant in the first of these second appeals and the other is by the third defendant. The suit was brought by the first respondent for partition of a half share in two items of immovable properties which the first defendant had purchased in court auction in execution of a money decree obtained by a firm of which he was a partner.The basis of the plaintiff's claim was two agreements, both oral, the first entered into in about January 1941 and the other in about March of the same year, with the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the first agreement brought into existence a partnership for the single purpose of purchasing the properties in court auction with the stipulation that the plaintiff and the firm were to equally contribute towards the purchase and have equal shares in them when purchased. It was also understood, according to the plaintiff, that the first defendant or persons duly authorised by him were to bid and purchase in court auction...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Ammal Vs. V. Swaminatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ158
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of the suit land with profits is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in Court auction in execution of a decree in Small Cause Suit No. 371 of 1956, on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur. She obtained the sale certificate, Exhibit A-l on 10th July, 1958, and delivery was effected under Exhibit A-2 on 14th September, 1958. According to the plaintiff, she obtained delivery of possession of the property with the standing crops. The fourth defendant was in possession of the land as the lessee of the first defendant judgment-debtor. He agreed to execute a lease deed but later refused to do so. The plaintiff applied to the Rent Court, Kumbakonam, for fixing a fair rent. The fourth defendant contended before the Rent Court that he was not entitled to the benefits of the Fair Rent Act, as he was cultivating more than the extent permitted under the Act. The plaintiff did not ...
Tag this Judgment!T. M. N. N. Somasundara Nadar and Sons Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR306(Mad)
This is a petition to quash an order of the II-Additional Income-tax Officer, Virudhunagar, dated January 29, 1965, relating to the assessment year 1964-65 by which he assessed the petitioner, which is a firm, to income-tax. The point on which the petitioner seeks to quash the order is that the Income-tax Officer failed to apportion the profits of the firm as between its partners as reconstituted since the death of one of the partners on January 18, 1963. It is contended that this omission is fatal to the assessment order itself.I am unable to accept this view of the scope of section 187 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main part of sub-section (1) of that section is to the effect 'where at the time of making an assessment under section 143 or section 144 it is found that a change has occurred in the constitution of a firm, the assessment shall be made on the firm as constituted at the time of making the assessment.'That is what was done precisely in this case. The first proviso to thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »