Chennai Court March 1968 Judgments
Sree Shanmugar Mills Ltd., by Managing Agents Sri Alagai Ltd. Vs. S.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad203
Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30-4-1959 of Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as he then was), in O.P. No. 297 of 1957 on the file of mis Court directing a winding up of the appellant company, Sri Shanmugar Mills Ltd. The company was incorporated in 1945 with its registered office at Rajapalayam in Ramanathapuram District, and with a shard capital of rupees twenty-five lakhs of which rupees eight lakhs odd worth of shares have been subscribed and paid up. The primary object and business of the company was to buy cotton and spin it into yarn, Dharmaraj Nadar, who filed the petition for the winding up of the company was a creditor of the company in a sum of Rs. 48,548.98 as on 30-10-1957. He had supplied cotton to the company and had not been paid therefor. The petition for winding up was filed on 15-11-1957, The ground stated in the petition for the winding up was that the company was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Companie...
Tag this Judgment!C. Subramaniam Vs. Speaker of the Madras, Legislative Assembly, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad10
1. This is a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining the Speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly (respondent 1) and the State of Madras (respondent 2) from proceeding further with' the notice forming Annexure A to the petition, asking the petitioner (Mr. C. Subramaniam) to show cause why he should not be held to have committed contempt of the Legislative Assembly. The Union of India, the Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of Madras have been shown in the array of parties as the third, fourth and fifth respondents to the petition.2. Annexure C to the petition is an excerpt from a leading daily of Madras dated 11-2-1968, describing a speech made by the petitioner at Dindigul, under the caption "Political Fraud". The report states that Mr. C. Subramaniam (petitioner) referred to the recent Language Bill (more strictly, Language Resolution) adopted by the State Assembly, as the 'biggest political fraud'. In res...
Tag this Judgment!Purushotham Chettiar Vs. Ramanuja Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ237
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage. The suit mortgage, was executed by the first defendant on 23rd July, 1951 for Rs. 6,000. The plaintiff alleged that the first defendant paid Rs. 2,000 towards the mortgage on 30th July 1953, but had not paid the balance. The first defendant claimed that in addition to the sum of Rs. 2,000 mentioned by the plaintiff, he had made another payment of Rs. 2,000 on 10th March, 1958 and had endorsed it on the mortgage. He also contended that a promissory note for Rs. 1,250 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on 29th January, 1957 was also towards the interest due on the suit mortgage. The plaintiff filed the suit on a registration copy of the mortgage alleging that he had lost the original. Both the Courts below have found that the loss pleaded is not true. They have also found that the second payment of Rs. 2,000 pleaded by the first defendant was true and that the promissory note for Rs. 1,250 had nothing to do wit...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Natesa Gounder Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ186
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in jaggery and other foodstuffs in Tirupathur, North Arcot district. He challenges the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 1171, Food, dated 30th October, 1967, directing the licensees under the Madras Gur and Khandsari Dealers' Licensing Order, 1963, not to sell gur or khandsari sugar to any person residing or carrying on trade in gur and khandsari sugar outside the district except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The validity of the notification is challenged on the ground that the notification was passed to effectuate purposes extraneous to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, end is a colourable exercise of powers by the. State Government. It was contended that the notification was in fact a prohibition on the movement of gur from Madras State to other States, and is beyond the powers of the State Government. It was submitted that as the notification has not set ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Paramanayagam Asari Vs. R.S. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ271
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This civil proceeding involves a question, which is of some interest on the particular facts of the case. S.C. No. 1625 of 1964 was admittedly a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, filed against the tenant who was impleaded as defendant with the name S. Periayanayagam Asari. The suit was decreed, and the record shows that the decree, as it ultimately stood, exhibited the name of the judgment-debtor as ' S. Periayanayagam Asari alias Paramanayagam Asari, son of Somasundaram Asari.'2. The decree-holder (respondent) filed an application under Order 21, rules 43 and 66, Civil Procedure Code, for attachment and sale of movables of his judgment-debtor. At that stage, the person who is the judgment-debtor according to the decree-holder entered appearance in response to notice and claimed that he was a third party and not the judgment-debtor. This person appears to have made a. stout denial in Court in respect of his identity as the judgment-debtor, and also t...
Tag this Judgment!Kv. Al. M. Ramanathan Chettiar by Legal Representative C. Vasantha Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR356(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This common reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act relates to the assessment years 1953-54 to 1955-56. The assessee, one KV. AL. M. Ramanathan Chettiar, who is now dead and succeeded by his legal representatives, was doing money-lending business in Malaya as well as in this country. It appears, he also owned rubber gardens in that foreign territory. The point in the reference turns on the proper application of Section 49D of the Income-tax Act to the facts in each of the years. Three questions have been formulated for the first year and two common questions for the next two years. The first question as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise an order of refund made by the Income-tax Officer on his view of Section 49D is not pressed by the assessee and it is, therefore, answered against him. The two other questions in that year are :' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in its view that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sundaram Industries Private Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR380(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - This tax case has come up at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax as applicant under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent is a private limited company. The assessment year in question is 1955-56. By a resolution passed a its general meeting held on December 31, 1954, the company distributed 60% of its profits as dividend as envisaged in section 23A of the Act as it then stood. The accounting year of the company ended with May 31, 1954. The distribution was so effected in accordance with the letter and procedure as was in force on the date of distribution which but for the supervening amendment of section 23A by the Finance Acts of 1955 and 1956, appears to be in order. We shall refer to the scope and effect of the Finance Acts as above presently. For the respondent, the assessment for the years 1955-56 was originally completed on February 17, 1956, on a total income of Rs. 2,58,168. After the amendments to section 23A were made...
Tag this Judgment!Doraikannu Padayachi Vs. Kaliaperumal Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ526
ORDERN. Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. Tats petition has been filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, awarding costs of Rs. 200 to the respondent under Section 148(3), Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 50 of 1967.2. What happened in this case was this : The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, in M.C.No. 58 of 1965 passed order on 28th June, 1965, declaring that the respondent herein was in possession of the disputed property. The revision petitioner preferred Crl. R.C. No. 879 of 1965 against the said order in this Court and the case was remanded for fresh disposal after fresh enquiry. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pudukottai, in M.C.No. 69 of 1966 who took up the enquiry after the remand again found by his order dated 31st January, 1967, that the respondent herein was in possession of the disputed land.3. At the time of delivering the order, he did not award costs.4. The respondent, after the order was passed filed an applic...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sivanandam Vs. Tribuvendas Vendraven Bros., by Power of Attorney Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ644
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Proceedings were initiated by the landlord respondent under Section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for evicting the petitioner on the ground that he has sublet the premises to respondents 2 and 3 in this petition. The petitioner was carrying on business in the suit premises in rice and other grains. He along with the 3rd respondent and others who were not eo nomine parties to these proceedings entered into a partnership on 14th September, 1962, and the name and style of the partnership business was T. V. Veerappa Chettiar and Company, which is the 2nd respondent in this petition. The first respondent filed the above application for eviction on the only ground that the petitioner has sublet the premises by associating himself with others as partners and for forming a partnership firm in the premises without the written co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ385
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The Criminal Revision Case is a reference by the District Magistrate, Madurai, and the Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti. The order of acquittal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot at all be supported and the reasons given by the Magistrate are quite unsatisfactory.2. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly these. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1) (a) and Section 2 (1) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act for having exposed for sale and sold a mixture of cow and buffalo's milk at Vanji Odai Street, Bodi, on 25th April, 1967, which on analysis was found to contain 33 per cent. of added water as calculated from the freezing point. The sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the respondent on 25th April, 1967. He added 16 drops of formal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »