Chennai Court December 1968 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Palayakat Company Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR642(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These are two references before us, one at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax and the other of the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. They arise out of a common order of the Tribunal in three appeals relating to the assessment years 1943-44 to 1945-46. The assessee is a private limited company with branches at Colombo and other places. On November 5, 1960, the assessee applied for refund of income-tax on the ground of double income-tax relief in respect of the first two years and on August 11, 1961, a similar application was made for refund in respect of the last year. By his order dated March 11, 1961, the Income-tax Officer granted refund for the first two years. He also granted similar relief on August 31, 1961, for the last of the assessment years. The Commissioner of Income-tax thought in proceedings under Section 33B that the Income-tax Officer had granted excess relief inasmuch as the additional tax paid by the assessee under S...
M. Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Palaniswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ200
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants filed the suit in the lower Court to recover Rs. 33,440 on three registered security bonds, Exhibits A-1 dated 1st November, 1957, Exhibit A-2 dated 4th September, 1948 and Exhibit A-3 dated 6th April, 1951, executed by the first defendant in their favour for Rs. 5,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively, hypothecating the properties covered by the plaint A, B and C Schedules respectively. The plaintiffs released some of the items of the hypotheca and sued to recover the amounts due to them from the remaining items alone, which are described in the plaint D Schedule. The security bonds were intended to cover future advances upto the limit mentioned in each and such advances were evidenced by promissory notes executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, found that the security bonds, Exhibits A-1 to A-3 are true, that the promissory notes Exhibits A~4 and A-8 are fully s...
Sri Thiagarajaswamy Devasthanam, Represented by Its Sole and Hereditar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ439
M. Natesan, J.1. The question that falls for determination in this batch of cases is whether the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act LVII of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Public Trusts Act) applied to proceedings pending under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955, the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, XXIV of 1956, and proceedings pending in the civil Court where defence under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 had been taken when the public Trusts Act LVII of 1961 came into force. Ramamurti, J., in C.R.P. No. 2032 of 1964 and C.R.P. No. 121 of 1965 observing that the provisions of the Public Trusts Act applied to all lands held under a public trust and that the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant should be governed by and worked cut only under that Act even though the relationship might have arisen long anterior applied the Act to proceedings pendi...
Chandrasekharan Pillai and ors. Vs. Muthu Bogi (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ643
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession on the ground that the suit site belongs to the Mariamman temple which belongs to the plaintiffs and to other Bogi families of seven villages. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the worshippers in the Mariamman temple in Ammayanaickanur village, that the suit property belongs to that temple and that the defendants have encroached upon the suit property. The defendants contended that the temple did not belong to the Bogis alone but belonged to the villagers of Ammayanaickanur and that the site does not belong to the temple and the plaintiffs who are only a section of the community cannot maintain the suit. The trial Court gave a decree declaring the title of the temple to the suit property. On appeal by both the parties, the lower appellate Court has held that the temple is entitled only to the portion marked HIML in Exhibit C-2 plan and dismissed the suit...
Raj Brothers Agencies Vs. the Board of Revenue
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1968
Reported in: [1973]30STC410(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the petitioners had filed an appeal to the Tribunal, but belatedly. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay and made an order that in view of it the appeal could not be entertained. Thereafter the petitioners moved the Board of Revenue under Section 34(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Board, however, rejected the petition on the ground :The petitioners have no legal jurisdiction to move the Board for exercise of its powers of suo motu revision under Section 34. The two petitions are therefore rejected in limine.2. These petitions are for mandamus directing the Board of Revenue to dispose of the petitioners' application under Section 34 in accordance with law.3. We are of the view that the petitions are well-founded. If the Board of Revenue meant by its order that because Section 34 provides for suo motu power and therefore no party however aggrieved could move the Board to exercise that powe...
A. Mohambaram Vs. M.A. Jayavelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad63; 1970CriLJ241
Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother, which discusses all relevant aspects of these Writ Appeals, in considerable detail. I am in entire agreement with his conclusions, and, if I am appending a brief, separate judgment, it is only because of the importance of the vital aspect.2. The facts on the record themselves are incontrovertibly established, and, indeed, there are no two views permissible on the facts. Briefly stated, in making the appointment of the first respondent to the office of the Public Prosecutor, North Arcot Sessions Division, the State was not appointing a person who had been nominated bv the Collector, or was any nominee of the Collector, under Rule 45 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The view to the contrary, taken by the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) is clearly based on a misconception of the actual facts of the record, as my learned brother has so plainly shown.3. On this aspect, which is the factual aspect...
The Venguard Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad236
Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruehirapalli, awarding compensation to the dependants of the deceased Murugan. He was travelling in a lorry belonging to the insured and insured by the appellant insurer. The Tribunal has found that Murugan died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle by the employee of the insured. On behalf of the insurer which was added as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, two objections were taken. One was that the insurance policy did not cover a case of this kind, that it was intended to cover any accident or injury caused to an employee of the insured and not to the employee of any other person, that as in this case the deceased Murugan was the employee not of the insured, but of the person whose goods were carried in the insured vehicle, the policy does not cover the liability for an accident caused to Murugan. The second contention was that the insured veh...
Elumalai Panchayat Board by Its President and anr. Vs. Guruswami Nadar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad364; (1970)2MLJ112
1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the question canvassed is whether the mahimai collections made by the Elumalai Panchayat in the district of Madurai would constitute "in come" within the meaning of Section 58 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. The plaintiffs who are residents and traders in the village of Elumalai, filed a suit more or less in a representative capacity in O. S. No. 66 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif. Tirumangalam, questioning the validity of the act of first defendant, the Panchayat Board, to levy and collect such moneys by way of mahimai, and that of the other defendants as the limbs of the Panchayat to implement its action by enforcing such collection. The 2nd defendant is the person to whom such collections have been formed out, the 3rd defendant is the President of the Board and the 4th defendant is the Manager of the Panchayat, The collections were opposed on the ground that Ex. B. 11, dated 16-12-1958, which is the resolution of t...
K. Subramania Pillai and ors. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC359(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions the main question canvassed is whether the exigence of sales tax on sales of cane jaggery in contradistinction to the exemption from tax granted to the sales of palm jaggery within the State of Madras is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether the legislative or executive machineries adopted by the State in imposing the levy and granting the exemption is legal. The petitioners are dealers in cane jaggery. As the affidavits in support of the issue of the process under Article 226 of the Constitution are many and varied in this batch, it was agreed that the facts in W.P. No. 369 of 1968 may be noticed and be taken as the pattern for adjudgment of the merits and the legal problems arising thereunder.2. The petitioner, a registered dealer who is dealing in cane jaggery,, complains of hostile discrimination by reason of the notification of the Government in G.O. 2261 dated 30th December, 1967, whereby the tax pay...
The Vanguard Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ542
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, awarding compensation to the dependants of the deceased Murugan. He was travelling in a lorry belonging to the insured and insured by the appellant insurer. The Tribunal has found that Murugan died as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle by the employee of the insured. On behalf of the insurer which was added as a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal, two objections were taken. One was that the insurance policy did not cover a case of this kind, that it was intended to cover any accident or injury caused to an employee of the insured and not to the employee of any other person, that as in this case the deceased Murugan was the employee not of the insured, but of the person whose goods were carried in the insured vehicle, the policy does not cover the liability for an accident caused to Murugan. The second contention was that the insured...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »