Chennai Court April 1967 Judgments
K.M. Rajaram Vs. Chinnathuraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ383
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. An interesting question of law arises in this writ petition, viz., whether a person can be disqualified for election as a member of a Panchayat, on the ground that he was a lessee of a coconut thope belonging to the Panchayat, on the date of the nomination.2. The writ petitioner had taken out a lease of coconut thope belonging to the Panchayat. In the election to the Perambur Panchayat, Mayuram Taluk, held on 30th January, 1965, the petitioner was declared elected. Tine first respondent filed an election petition against the petitioner, for a declaration that the election was void, as the petitioner had an interest in a subsisting contract with the Panchayat, Board on the date of nomination, and he was therefore disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat.3. As per the provisions of the Panchayat Act, a person is disqualified for election ^s a member, if, at the date of nomination or election, he is interested in a subsisting contract made with or any work be...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras by the Collector of Thanjavur Vs. Ramanatha Rao an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ164
M. Natesan, J. 1. These revisions ought not to have been preferred by the State-Clearly the liability of the State is undisputed and without further demand the moneys could properly have been brought into Court for payment out to the petitioner. The State wants to defeat the claim on wholly unsubstantial and technical grounds that do not in the least touch the merits of the case. The lower Court has done the best to avoid manifest injustice, and got round a patently erroneous earlier order wholly devoid, of jurisdiction. But the State has chosen to challenge the correctness of the lower Court's action. So, I shall deal with the case on its merits.2. Ramanatha Rao, the first respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit. The Government had started escheat proceedings against the properties, which had been left by one Jaga...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue, Represented by the Commissioner of Land Revenue Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ515
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1899. The following question has been referred to us for decision:Whether the document, dated 13th August, 1957, is an instrument given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell any immovable property falling under Article 48(f) of Schedule 1-A 9now Article 48(e) of Schedule 1) or a mere power of attorney falling under Article 48(d) of Schedule 1-A (now Article 48(c) of Schedule 1 of the Indian Stamp Act as an amended),2. Annamalai & Co. (Private) Limited, the respondent herein, borrowed several sums of money from Reliance Bank of India Limited, and hypothecated with the bank immovable properties as security for the loan. Thereafter, on 13th August 1957, Annamalai & Co. executed a document described as an irrevocable power of attorney, which is the subject-matter of the present reference. The gist of the document is this.3. Annamalai & Co. to be described as the borrowers, agreed with the...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mohamed HussaIn and anr. Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1004
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The writ petitioners are brothers and they have filed these petitions to quash the orders of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, confirming the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras in VIII-10 291-58 Cus. Adj. dated 5.9.1958, imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000 on the petitioner in W.P. 2437 of 1965 and Rs. 6000 on the petitioner in W.P. 2121 of 1965. penalty was imposed on the petitioners who were found to carry on smuggling activities, under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.2. The case of the department is that these petitioners had been indulging in the smuggling of Indian currency to Ceylon. On 21.10.1957, the Postal Appraiser, during the course of interception of letters at the Foreign Exchange Post-Office, Madurai, came across seven envelopes all addressed to the business premises of the petitioners at Colombo. The customs authorities took up further investigation of the matter and traced the petitioners. The currency was confisc...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Mohamed HussaIn and anr. Vs. the Central Board of Excise and Cust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ211
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. The writ petitioners are brothers and they have filed these petitions to quash the orders of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, confirmingTIF NO 212 MISSINGrule that the finding of a criminal Court is conclusive, in every sense, upon administrative authority. If the finding is purely a technical acquittal, the administrative authority may conceivably punish, on the same facts. Bearing these principles, if we examine1 the facts of the present case, we see that he petitioner in W.P. No. 2121 of 1965 was discharged and he petitioner in W.P. No. 2437 of 1965 was acquitted as there was only a strong suspicion amounting to almost a moral certainty. Further in regard to Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, it was set aside on the ground that, when the authorities decided on the particular facts to prosecute the offender, the conviction could only be under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and could not be under the general provisio...
Tag this Judgment!M. P. K. Kandasami Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR169(Mad)
This revision case is filed by the assessee, M. P. K. Kandasami Chettiar, against the order of the respondent, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, revising suo motu the assessment order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Vellore.The circumstances which have given rise to this revision case can be set down briefly : The assessee executed on May 16, 1955, a registered document purporting to be a partition deed. We will refer to this document in somewhat greater detail a little later in this judgment. Under this document, he partitioned certain properties which, according to the recitals in the document, he had obtained by self-acquisition and also by a will, between his wife and other members of the joint Hindu family including two sons and three daughters. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Salem, allowed the assessee and the other sharers to compound the agricultural income-tax in respect of the properties thus partitioned separately. In the case of the assesseee, for t...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Kailasa Bhattar Vs. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ610
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The question that is raised in this Writ Petition for decision is the validity of a notification by the State Government under Section 3. of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring that the provisions of the aforesaid act shall apply to a Hindu Public Charitable Endowment described as 'Dwadasi Kattalai' for feeding a specified number of Brahmins.2. A certain lady by name Avudaiyammal executed a deed of endowment on 6th January, 1920, endowing certain wet lands and also a house in Sankarankoil in the Tirunelveli District for the purpose of feeding to Brahmins on the two fortnightly Dwadasi days which fall in each month, and directed her sister's son-- Pothi Bhattar and his heirs to be in enjoyment of the property as hakdars and perform the charity. The terms of the gift deed will be referred to presently in greater detail. After the death of Pothi Bhattar, his son Rathna Pothi Bhatt...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.K. Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ352
ORDER1. This revision case is filed by the assessee M.P.K. Kandasami Chettiar against the order of the respondent the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax revising suo motu the assessment order of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Vellore.2. The circumstances which have given rise to this revision case can be set down briefly. The assessee executed on 16th May, 1955, a registered document purporting to be a partition deed. We will refer to this document in somewhat greater detail a little later in this judgment. Under this document, he partitioned certain properties (which, according to the recitals in the document, he had obtained by self-acquisition and also by a will) between his wife and other members of the joint Hindu family including two sons and three daughters. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Salem allowed the assessee and the other sharers to compound the agricultural income-tax in respect of the properties thus partitioned separately. In the case of the assessee, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharani Roadways (P.) Ltd. Vs. Safe Service Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ460
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The appeal is instituted by Bharani Roadways (P.) Ltd. from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in Writ Petition No. 1655 of 1966. The essential facts are that the appellant firm sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, in respect of a town service route (No. 19 of Salem Town) serviced by the 1st respondent firm, Safe Service Ltd. It appears that, originally, this town service route No. 19, was from Salem Junction to Salem Junction, via Asthampatti and three other fixed points. The route, as it exists, is a circular route, covering ten miles and two furlongs.2. The first respondent applied for a variation of this route, to enable him to touch also the new Engineering College, beyond the Municipal limits, at a distance of five miles from Salem Junction. The relevant formalities in Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act were gone through, and the variation was ultimately granted.3. The main attack on...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karuthiah Alias Ilayaperumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ459
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the accused in P.R.C. No. 9 of 1966, to set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Tirumangalam, in Crl. M.P. No. 301 of 1966, dated 24th May, 1966, dismissing that application.2. It appears, in the charge-sheet filed by the police against the petitioner in P.R.C. No. 9 of 1966, an Advocate, Sri Lakshminarasimhan was cited as a witness for the prosecution. The petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Magistrate stating that he had engaged Sri Lakshminarasimhan, Advocate, Madurai, to defend him in that case, as the advocate was well-known to him and his family and that he had confidence only in him and that he should be permitted to appear for him, after directing the prosecution to dispense with him as a prosecution witness. He has further stated in his application that the advocate had been cited as a witness for the prosecution with ulterior motives in an attempt to deprive him of the service of the advoc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »