Chennai Court January 1966 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
C. Sundararaja Pillai Vs. Sakthi Talkies (Dindigul) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad127; [1967]37CompCas463(Mad)
M. Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J.(1) The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,865,59 from the first defendant, Sakthi Talkies Ltd. Dindigul, alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by the eight directors of the first defendant company in favour of the plaintiff in 1953. The simple facts of the action, as stated in the plaint, were that the properties of the plaint schedule belonged to the plaintiff and the second defendant, and that the plaintiff sold the land to the first defendant firm for the construction of a cinema theatre, for an amount of Rs. 37,500. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,093-0-6 was due, and the eight directors of the first defendant firm jointly executed the suit negotiable instrument in favour of the plaintiff for that sum.(2) The action could be viewed as a suit simpliciter upon a promissory note, and also as one to enforce the vendor's lien in respect of the unpaid purchase money; for the plaintiff specifically pray...
Champalal JaIn and ors. Vs. B.P. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad466
(1) This appeal arises out of Claims Tribunal, Madras. The Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 10864-47 to the respondent herein, as he was involved in an accident which occurred at about 2 p.m. on 26-4-1962, the result being that he became a permanently disabled man.(2) The claimant's (respondent herein) case before the Tribunal was that on the date of the accident i.e., 26-4-1962, while he was coming from Raja Annamalai Chettiar Road to Dasaprakash Hotel on the Poonamallee High road, the taxi suddenly knocked him down, inflicting severe injuries with the result that he was confined in a hospital for a period of ten months. Though the doctors treated him for his injuries, he was not able to move his limbs freely with the result he has now become a lame man. He, therefore, claimed compensation against the owner of taxi and also the Insurance company with whom the taxi has been insured. The question that was considered by the...
C.D. Sekkizhar Vs. Secretary, Bar Council, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad35
1. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court with a standing of eight years at the Bar. As a member of the profession, he applies under Art, 226 of the Constitution for rule forbidding the respondent from conducting the election to the Bar Council of Madras, which was originally fixed to be held on 5-11-1965 but stayed by this court. The petitioner contends that Rule 7(2) of the Election Rules framed by the Madras Bar Council on 20-4-1963 and approved by the Bar Council of India on 24/25-8-1963 is invalid in so far as it forbids any announcement or canvassing as provided for by the Explanation to the rule. The ground of invalidity, it is said, is that the Explanation is unreasonable. The petition is opposed not only of the ground that the Explanation is in keeping with the ethics and standards of the noble profession but also on the ground that the alleged invalidity of the Explanation in is more properly agitated by means of an election petition under R. 35 of the Election Rules.(2)...
Masseys Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: [1966]17STC472(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petition is to quash a notice served by the department on the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System, under Section 26(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, requiring him to pay over to the department certain moneys towards arrears of tax due from the petitioner. The ground of the petitioner is that the requirement of Section 26(1), that a copy of the requisition to the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System, shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority, has not been complied with. As a result, it is said, the notice to the Superintending Engineer is invalid.2. There are two reasons why this petition should be dismissed. One is that, by quashing the notice, no practical result will follow, because pursuant to the requisition under Section 26(1), the Superintending Engineer had paid the amount, covered by the requisition, to. the department. By quashing the notice, the petitioner, will hav...
Rabindranath Vs. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, Royapurram, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad299
ORDER(1) The petition is to quash a notice served by the Department on the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System under S. 26(1) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act, 1959, requiring him to pay over to the Department certain moneys towards arrears of tax due from the petitioner. The ground of the petitioner is that the requirement of S. 26(1), that a copy of the requisition to the Superintending Engineer, Madras Electricity System, shall be forwarded to the dealer at his last address known to the assessing authority, has not been complied with. As a result, it is said, the notice to the Superintending Engineer is invalid.(2) There are two reasons why this petition should be dismissed. One is that, by quashing the notice, no practical result will follow, because pursuant to the requisition under S. 26(1), the Superintending Engineer had paid the amount, covered by the requisition, to the department. By quashing the notice, the petitioner, will have no effective remedy under A...
C.D. Sekkizhar Vs. the Secretary, Bar Council and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ35
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner is an Advocate of this Court with a standing of eight years at the Bar. As a member of the profession, he applies under Article 226 of the Constitution for a rule forbidding the respondent from conducting the election to the Bar Council of Madras which was originally fixed to be held on 5th November 1965 but stayed by this Court. The petitioner contends that Rule 7(2) of the Election Rules framed by the Madras Bar Council on 20th April, 1963 and approved by the Bar Council of India on 24/25th August, 1963 is invalid in so far as it forbids any announcement or canvassing as provided for by the Explanation to the rule. The ground of invalidity, it is said, is that the Explanation is unreasonable The petition is opposed not only on the ground that the Explanation is in keeping with the ethics and standards of the noble profession but also on the ground that the alleged invalidity of the Explanation is more properly agitated by means of an election p...
Ts. Pl. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ452
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment year 1944-45 corresponding to the accounting year ended on 12th April, 1944. The assessee is a money-lender at Tiruchirapalli. His father Palaniappa Chettiar, who was carrying on business at that place, had made various advances to Nallathambi Sakkarai Manradiar known as, Pattayagar, a prominent landlord in Coimbatore District, on promissory notes which, in all, amounted to-Rs. 1,38,535 as on 6th July, 1932 towards principal and Rs. 1,34,965 towards interest. Including a further cash advance of Rs. 2,500, the Pattayagar executed a mortgage on that day securing repayment of the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,76,000. Till 1938, only a sum of Rs. 13,620 was paid by the mortgagor in part payment of the debt. On 14th December, 1940, the mortgagee instituted a suit to enf6rce the mortgage and recover Rs. 5,50,573 made up of the principal sum of Rs. 2,76,000 and interest of Rs. 2,88,193 less the sum of Rs. 13,620 paid by the-mortgagor. I...
Ts. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1966
Reported in: [1966]62ITR774(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - This reference relates to the assessment year 1944-45 to the accounting year ended on April 12, 1944. The assessee is a money-lender at Tiruchirapalli. His father, Palaniappa Chettiar, who was carrying on business at that place, had made various advances to Nallathambi Sakkarai Manradiar, known as Pattayagar, a prominent landlord in Coimbatore District, on promissory notes which, in all, amounted to Rs. 1,38,535 as on July 6, 1932, towards principal and Rs. 1,34,965, towards interest. Including a further cash advance of Rs. 2,500, the Pattayagar executed a mortgage on that day securing repayment of the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,76,000. Till 1938, only a sum of Rs. 13,620 was paid by the mortgagor in part payment of the debt. On December 14, 1940, the mortgagee instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage and recover Rs. 5,50,573, made up of the principal sum of Rs. 2,76,000 and interest of Rs. 2,88,193, less the sum of Rs. 13,620 paid by the mortgagor. In September, 1943,...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Moha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad315
(1) Under S. 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, the following question stands referred to us by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras:"Whether the document dated 30-6-1955 comprised both a partition and settlement of gift and whether the note to Schedule A of the document read with the recitals and the relevant items of property constitute an instrument chargeable as a settlement under the Stamp Act."One Mohammad Yoonus Sait moved this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus to direct the Board of Revenue Madras to make the reference. To the document in question, the parties are the said Mohamed Yoonus Sait and his four sons. Broadly stated, this document purported to record a gift of certain items of properties, by Yoonus Sait, to his four sons who thereafter proceeded to partition these items among themselves. Three other items referred to in the document are stated to have been set apart for being gifted to the wife and the daughters ...
Sri Sarada Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad381; (1966)2MLJ16
(1)The plaintiff, Sri Sarada Mills Ltd., whose suit for damages against the Union of India, as owning and representing the Central and Southern Railways, was dismissed by the court below, is the appellant. They had consigned through their agents Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Factory Ltd., 100 bales of R. P. Cotton from Nagpur to Podanur under a railway receipt issued by the Central Railway (the first defendant). The goods had to pass through several stations along the two railways, Central and Southern, before it arrived at Podanur, and when it arrived 87 bales out of 100 were burnt and charred and 13 bales were found loose and short. The plaintiff applied for open delivery and the railway authorities at Podanur got the damage surveyed, and issued a certificate of damage and shortage. But when the plaintiffs made a claim for damages the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Southern Railways, informed them that the consignment was involved in a fire accident at Sirpur Nagaznagar on the Centr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »