Chennai Court June 1966 Judgments
D.A.S. Swami Vs. Kubendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad276; 1967CriLJ1020
ORDER(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition filed under Section 439, Cri. P. C. by one D.A.S. Swami in his personal capacity are these. In C. C. 6481 of 1966 on the file of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, on Kuppuswami alias Kubendran filed a complaint against Kandaswami Mudaliar under Sections 409 and 403, I.P.C. On 23-4-1966 he prayed for the issue of the summons to the accused for appearance on 30-4-1966. On 30-4-1966 on Sri. T. R. Venkataraman, a lawyer, entered appearance on behalf of the accused and prayed that the absence of the accused for the day might be excused on medical grounds. That was excused. The case was adjourned to 9-5-1966, and that day, being a holiday, it was adjourned again to 20-5-1966. In the meantime the accused executed a power of attorney in favour of D.A.S. Swami. It may be taken that thereby Sri. T. R. Venkataraman was no longer appearing for the accused. The power of attorney is in the following terms:'I hereby appoint my lawyer Mr...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Kuppayandi Pillai Vs. Veerakutti Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ152
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is a Revision Petition under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, passed under Section 101 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959), directing delivery of the temple and its accounts to four persons. Veerakutti Goundar, Perumal, Goundar Vijjiravelu and Jagannatha Pillai. Those four persons and one Kuppanna Goundar were appointed trustees of the temple by the Area Committee by their order dated 8th December, 1965, in exercise of their powers under Section 49(1) of the Act. Though the application had to be made by the five persons, including Kuppanna Goundar, it was stated in the petition that Kuppanna Goundar had since resigned the trusteeship, and the petition, was filed only by the four persons. The application was resisted by one Kuppayandi Pillai, who claimed to be a hereditary trustee. If he was a hereditary trustee, Section 49 would not apply. V...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanujam Vs. Forest Range Officer, Padugai Range
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ375
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This revision case raises a short but interesting question on the interpretation of the law of Court-fee. The question that arose before the learned District Magistrate, from whose decision the present revision case is filed, is whether a memorandum of appeal presented by the accused in a criminal case, against his conviction and sentence, should be affixed with a Court-fee label of one rupee under Article 3(i) of Schedule II of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, or seventy-five paise under Article 11(g) of Schedule II of the Act. These two articles are extracted below:3. (i) Memorandum of Appeal from an order inclusive of an order determining any question under Section 47 or Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and not otherwise provided for when presented to any Court other than the High Court or to any Executive Officer, other than the Board of Revenue or Chief Executive Authority... One rupee.11. (g) Application or petition ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thirupathi Pillai Vs. Ganthimathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ325
P. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the first respondent for declaration, possession and damages. The short facts of the case are these.2. The suit property originally belonged to one Sivarama Pillai, the father-in-law of the first respondent Ganthimathi Animal. He settled the suit property on Ganthimathi Ammal under a registered settlement deed dated 14th November, 1947. The contents of the deed reveal that the suit property was settled on the first respondent in consideration of her marrying his son as his second wife. But, in the year 1956, Sivarama Pillai revoked the settlement deed, and by Exhibit B-2 dated 24th March, 1959 he sold the suit property to his own son-in-law the appellant herein. The first respondent therefore filed the suit for declaration and possession.3. The appellant resisted the suit contending that the settlement in favour of the first respondent was a nominal document not acted upon and that in any event after the revocation of t...
Tag this Judgment!J.A. Kareem Sait Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad171; [1966]18STC370(Mad)
1. The validity of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957 and Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is questioned in these petitions for prohibiting the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam from taking further action against the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in pursuance of his notices in September, 1965, proposing to bring to tax certain turnovers of inter State sales for the years 1960-61 to 1964-65 on the ground that such sales were not made on the basis of 'C ' declaration of dealers of other States. The petitioner states that he has been carrying on business as dealer in areca-nuts in Mettupalayam town. During these years, he admittedly effected sales of areca-nuts to dealers outside the State of Madras. He did not register himself as a dealer as required by Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to him, being uneducated he was not aware of the provisions of this Act...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manickammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ374
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. I think that this revision will have to be clearly allowed, because the facts of the record, taking them as fully established, do not warrant the inference that the revision petitioner is guilty under Section 7(d) read with Section 10(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act read with G.O. Ms. No. 3031, Home, dated 1st November, 1958.2. We may take it that there was a raid by the Police in the house of Chellammal, the daughter of the revision petitioner, on the occasion in question, and that the Police recovered two gunny bags (M.Os. 1 and 2) containing bottles of Tincture Zingeberis Mitis. There were a large number of bottles, and another khaki bag contained eight 3 oz. bottles with Tincture Zingeberis Mitis. Indisputably, if the revision petitioner possessed these bottles, consciously or with knowledge, she would be liable to be punished under the provisions of law above set forth.3. But this is precisely what is not warranted by the bare facts of the record...
Tag this Judgment!The Hilal Press : Registered Firm No. 276 of 1957, Through Its Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ323
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. The question involved in this revision proceeding relates to the proper application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to certain facts. I may immediately state that the respondent, Sri Sivagami Sundari Sri Chidambara Swami Devasthanam, Sattur, which succeeded in obtaining the admission of an appeal filed well beyond time, has sought to advance the contention that the question of excusing the delay in such a matter, and the question whether sufficient cause existed for excusing the deley, were essentially within the discretion of the Court concerned. This is on the authority of M. Ratnalingam v. Koteswara Rao : (1949)1MLJ144 . But unfortunately for the respondent, it is the Court below (Court of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli) which explicitly finds, not merely that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal, about 75 days on the admission of the respondent institution itself, but also that there was negligence.2. I may quote the very words ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji J.A. Kareem Sait Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ396
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The validity of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957 and Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is questioned in these petitions for prohibiting the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam from taking further action against the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in pursuance of his notices in September, 1965, proposing to bring to tax certain turnovers of inter State sales for the years 1960-61 to 1964-65 on the ground that such sales were not made on the basis of 'C ' declaration of dealers of other States. The petitioner states that he has been carrying on business as dealer in areca-nuts in Mettupalayam town. During these years, he admittedly effected sales of areca-nuts to dealers outside the State of Madras. He did not register himself as a dealer as required by Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to him, being uneducated he was not aware of the provi...
Tag this Judgment!A. Bhaskaran Vs. the State of Madras by the Secretary to Government, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ466
M. Natesan, J.1. The above writ petition relates to the village of Komarapalayam Agraharam, Tiruchengode Taluk, Salem District and challenges the applicability of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 to the village in question. The constitutional validity of the Act which was also put in issue has been upheld by us in the judgment in Subbachariar v. State of Madras I.L.R. (1967) Mad. 646 : (1967) 1 M.L.J. 206 just now delivered. It is contended on the merits that the grant in question though called an inam is not an inam, but is an assignment for consideration. From the extract of the Fair Inam Register relating to the village it appears that in the year 1760 Krishna Raja Wadiyar, the Raja of Mysore, granted the village of Jadagapady or Nattapatti, together with twelve hamlets to certain Brahimins, Komarapalayam being one of such hamlets. The grant was not by way of gift pure and simple or benefaction by the Ruler either of the land or any portion ...
Tag this Judgment!T. S. Pl. P. Chidambaram Chettiar (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR181(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a reference under section 66 (2) in the Income-tax Act 1922, in which the question for consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of either or both the sums of Rs. 5,211 and Rs. 1,080 of the bad debts claimed by the assessee was right in law ?'The reference relates to the assessment year 1956-57 corresponding to the accounting year ended April 12, 1956. The assessee was carrying on business of money-lending at Tiruchirapalli. On a promissory note date June 13, 1945, he lent Rs. 8,500 to one A. T. B. SB. Subramanian Chettiar. Deducting payments, the balance due as on April 12, 1954, was Rs. 3,986-12-10. On account of an earlier debt incurred by the same debtor, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was due from him to the assessee as on June 14, 1942. As on June 13, 1945, the amount due to Rs. 7,752-10-0. On that date the assessee got a promissory note for Rs. 6,528 leaving a balance of Rs. 1,224-10-0 which was transferred to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »