Chennai Court June 1966 Judgments
P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. C.T. Senthilnathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad253
(1) The main ground upon which we are now disposing of this original side appeal can be very simply stated. In E. P. No. 24 of 1960 in O. S. 6 of 1952-53 of the District Court, Shimoga, there was an application (No. 1918 of 1962) before Srinivasan J. on the Original Side under Order XXI Rule 58, C.P.C. for raising the attachment of certain properties, which was effected in execution of the decree. This application was preferred by one C. T. Senthilnathan, the claimant.(2) naturally enough, the learned Judge (Srinivasan J.) addressed himself to the main question whether the claimant was holding the properly under the judgment-debtor, or for the benefit of another person, or whether he was holding it in his own bona fide right. The learned Judge was satisfied that the title prima facie and possession were with the applicant, in his own right and on his own account. The learned Judge, therefore, concluded that this property could not be validly attached and sold as the property of the ju...
Tag this Judgment!Karua Taluk Ex. Tappers Association Vs. Ramaswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad260; (1966)IILLJ892Mad
(1) This appeal raised out of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of the plaint property and to call upon defendant 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2) to render a true and proper account of the Karur Taluk Ex Tappers Association from 1942 till the date of suit, directing them to pay the amount that may be found due, and also for future profits from the suit property.(2) The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The plaintiff association has been duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, Prior to the introduction of prohibition the aforesaid association was working under the name and style of Karur Taluk Tappers Union and it was registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The Union had a membership of more than 2000 members and respondents 1 and 2 herein. President and Treasurer respectively, were collecting subscription from the various members. In the course of the management of the Union, the property in question...
Tag this Judgment!Karur Taluk Ex. Tappers Association by Its Secretary, M.S. Karuppanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ524
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession of the plaint property and to call upon defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2) to render a true and proper account of the Karur Taluk Ex-Tappers Association from 1942 till the date of suit, directing them to pay the amount that may be found due, and also for future profits from the suit property.2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as follows. The plaintiff association has been duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. Prior to the introduction of prohibition the aforesaid association was working under, the name and .style of Karur Taluk Tappers Union and it was registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926. This Union had a membership of more than 2,000 members and respondents 1 and 2 herein, President and Treasurer respectively, were collecting subscriptions from the various members. In the course of the management of the union, the...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad192; [1967]63ITR733(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) The assessee having failed to get deduction of two items claimed by it, the following questions have been referred to us under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:'1. Whether the creation of a reverse in compliance with S. 17 of the Banking Companies Act is sufficient compliance with the requirements of S. 10(2) vide proviso (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922; and 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the pensions paid to Mr. Subbiah in the assessment years 1953-54 to 1959-60 were expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business under S. 10(2)(xv)'.The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in banking. One Sri Subbiah was appointed as General Manager of the Bank for a period of seven years from April 1945, under the terms of a contract of service. On his retirement on 31-3-1952, he was co-opted as a director with effect from 1-4-1952. Even when he was in service, the Board of Directors of ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Varadappa Naicker Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ438
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in W.P. No. 918 of 1966, which related to the acquisition of certain lands of the petitioner (appellant) in S.P. Nos. 72 and 82 in S. No. 145 of Vehyoor Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, for the declared public purpose of an extension to a Harijan Colony. In seeking the interference of this Court in exercise of its powers in writ jurisdiction, the petitioner (Appellant) affirmed in an affidavit that (1) the acquisition was not a 'public purpose' within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (2) that it was an infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and (3) that, in any event, the acquisition was mala fide, being a colourable exercise of power the land was not :suitable for the public purpose, as it was lower in level than the existing colony, and separated therefrom by a channel. There were alternative sites that were even more suitabl...
Tag this Judgment!The British Machinery Supplies Co., by Power-of-agent and Branch Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ394
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this revision petition, viz., whether the plaintiff, the owner of a sewing machine, who sold it under a Hire-Purchase agreement to the first defendant, could recover it from the third defendant who was a pledgee from the first defendant. The Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, as far as the third defendant was concerned. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this revision petition contending that a decree should be passed against the third defendant also.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as per the terms of the agreement, the first defendant had no right to pledge the sewing machine with the third defendant and therefore his client would be entitled to recover the machine from whomsoever it remained. Let us, therefore, consider the rights the first defendant would be entitled to in the goods during the subsistence of the Hire-purchase Agreement. Lord Macnaghten says in Tolhurst v....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›