Chennai Court April 1966 Judgments
Sri La Sri Somasundara Gnana Desiga Swamigal, Madathipathi of Kovilur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ551
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This Revision Petition involves the construction of Sections 12 and 28 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Madras Act XIV of 1955) The suit was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, in 1960 and registered there as O.S. No. 14 of 1961. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the properties set out in Schedules A to D-2 of the plaint and for rendition of accounts by the defendant and future profits, the plaintiff instituting the suit as Madathipathi of Kovilur Mutt. The plaintiff had valued the suit for purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 2,34,652 and paid Court-fee Rs. 200 under Section 28 of the Act on the relief of possession, the maximum Court-fee payable under that section, and a Court-fee of Rs. 75 in respect of relief for accounting under Section 35(1) of the Act. The suit was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam, where it became O.S. No. 14 of 1964. Then for the first...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. the Madras Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad10
(1) The matter referred to us is under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the question for decision has been phrased as follows:--"Whether the instrument in question is liable to be stamped even if it were not to be attested and whether instruments in general are to be stamped on execution notwithstanding that other conditions which validate the transfer of right which the instrument purports to make are not present? Whether the instrument in question is chargeable as a mortgage deed, under Art. 40(b) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act?"(2) As we shall presently make it clear, the facts establish beyond the shadow of any doubt or controversy that there is no executed document of any kind in the present case. There is only a draft of a proposed document, which may or may not come is not existence at all. The content of the reference to us is that on the assumption or supposition that this document might be executed as a deed of mortgage without attestation, the issue should be...
Tag this Judgment!L.S. Chandramouli and Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC325(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The assessee admittedly acted as a local agent of his non-resident principal. He also carried on a business of his own. During the accounting year, the assessee transferred the goods of his non-resident principal to his own business and on this transaction he admittedly collected commission from his non-resident principal. The question is whether the transaction involved a sale chargeable to tax. The revenue authorities as well as the Tribunal have uniformly held and in our opinion quite rightly, that the transaction involved a sale and will be liable to local tax.2. It is argued that the same person cannot sell goods to himself. That is true enough. But here, the same person held two different capacities, one as an agent of a non-resident principal and the other as proprietor of his own business, two different entities altogether. When he transferred the goods to himself, he not only acted in that transaction as the agent of his non-resident principal, but also as a p...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. M. Chockalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ139
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Ranganayaki Ammal has been convicted under Section 7(2)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, read with Section 33(1) of the said Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 in default simple imprisonment for five weeks. The finding of the Fifth Presidency Magistiate is that the agreed rent was Rs. 25 per month and that the petitioner committed the offence by demanding a higher rent of Rs. 34 per month. Section 7(2))(a) of the Act is as follows:Where the fair rent of a building has not been fixed the landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of, any premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent. Thus, what is prohibited is only a claim by a landlord for any premium or other like sum, and not rent. The landlord is entitled to receive a month's rent by way of advance but as it would amount to premium, a proviso has been added to enable the landlord to receive, or...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniswamy Gounder Alias Palani Gounder Vs. Nataraja Gounder Alias Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ149
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appeal by the complainant, Palaniswamy Gounder, against the acquittal of accused 1 to 3 for the offences of criminal trespass and mischief. The Sub-Magistrate, Udumalpet, who tried the case on a private complaint filed by the appellant, had convicted three of the four accused for criminal trespass and mischief and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 25 each under each count and ordered a such of Rs. 60 out of the fine amount, if collected, to be paid to the appellant as compensation. The District Magistrate, on appeal by the convicted accused ordered notice to the appellant herein, but he was not served. The learned Advocate for the appellant urged that the appeal should be directed to be re-heard by the District Magistrate as the appellant had no opportunity to support the order of compensation in his favour.2. Section 422, Criminal Procedure Code, does not contemplate any notice t the complainant in an appeal preferred by an accused person against his conviction and st...
Tag this Judgment!Philipp Ullrich Vs. Chellan Sanyasi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ240
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petition by the complainant Phillip Ullrich to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, refusing to direct the accused to produce the properties concerned in the case which were entrusted to him in pursuance of the order of this Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 1529 of 1964 dated 2nd November, 1964. In fact it was the Circle Inspector who moved the Additional First Class Magistrate for such a direction and it was refused by the Magistrate not only on a construction of the order of this Court but also on the ground that it amounted to testimonial compulsion.2. The facts which led up to that order are briefly as follows. The petitioner preferred a complaint to the police under Section 409, Indian Penal Code and the police seized the properties forming the subject-matter of this petition from the possession of the accused. The accused filed an application under Section 516-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for custody of the properti...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mani Vs. A. Sellamuthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ431
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.P. No. 40 of 1965 on the file of the Election Tribunal cum the District Munsif of Ariyalur and for quashing the order passed by the second respondent on 6th December, 1965. The petitioner is a member of the Ariyalur Panchayat having been elected from Ward No. 11 on 31st January, 1965. The first respondent was also elected as a member from Ward No. 6. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 40 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif '& Court Ariyalur, under Section 28(1) of Madras Act XXXV of 1958 alleging that the petitioner and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 19th July, 1962 with the common object of obstructing the State Government Officers from attending to their work and in the course of the agitations squatted on the entrance of the Ariyalur Revenue Divisional Officer's office obstructing the officers from going into the office, an...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajammal Vs. P. Jesudhas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1977Mad53
ORDER1. These two C. R. Ps. can be dealt with together. The short facts are as follows:--In O. S. No. 47 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, the appellant herein obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,933-75 on a simple mortgage executed by one Thankammal, wife of the 1st defendant. Thankammal died. Hence the suit was filed against her husband, the first defendant, and her legal representatives, defendant 2 to 8. Defendants 9 and 10 were the subsequent encumbrancers. The hypothecate was brought to sale and the plaintiff herself purchased the same on 20th January, 1972, for a sum of Rs. 27,050/-. The decree-holder plaintiff was allowed to set off the amount due under the decree and therefore a sum of S. 10,574/- being the balance was deposited into Court. The first defendant filed E. A. No. 98 of 1972 for setting aside the sale. A conditional order was passed requiring him to deposit certain amount. That conditional order was not complied with. Hence, the sale was co...
Tag this Judgment!Samidurai Vs. Thangavelu Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ146
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This revision case is directed against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulundurpet, in C.A. No. 41 of 1964. The prior facts leading up to the order now under revision, are briefly the following. In C.C. No. 3609 of 1963 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vridhachalam one Thangavelu, who is a well-to-do pattadar of Perianesalur village, was proseuted by the Station House Officer, Vepur, on a charge-sheet filed under Section 353, Indln Penal Code. The. charge-sheet itself was filed after investigation was conducted by the Police on a complaint filed by P.W. 1 in that case, the Village Munsif of the village, who had alleged therein that when in puisuance of a demand for arrears of land revenue, he had distrained and attached a bull belonging to the accused, the latter had assaulted P.W. 4 the Talayari and rescued the bull from his custody. The learned Sub-Magistrate, Vridhachalam, acquitted the accused, giving sufficient reasons for fin...
Tag this Judgment!P. SirajuddIn Vs. Government of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad117; 1968CriLJ493; (1968)1MLJ480
1. These cases arise out of a charge-sheet laid before the Special judge, Madras Division, by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madras on 5-10-1964 against P. Sirajuddin, Retired Chief engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Madras, under S. 165 I. P. C. and S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(b) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (Central Act II of 1947), and taken on file as C. C. 10 of 1964 by the Special Judge. The petitioner is charged, to be brief, with having habitually obtained for himself and members of his family valuable things from his subordinate officers without consideration or for inadequate consideration or for inadequate consideration or securing pecuniary advantage, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant. Nineteen instances are enumerated in the charge-sheet between the period 3-1-1961 and 14-3-1964. He is alleged, for instance, to have directed another officer working under him to get a suit length of imported variet...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »