Chennai Court March 1968 Judgments
Ellappa Goundar Vs. Govindaraja Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ585
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the unsuccessful B party against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram, in Miscellaneous Case No. 112 of 1966, declaring that the first respondent and the other villagers (A party) have a right to take dead bodies through the lands of the revision petitioner to the burial ground and forbidding the revision petitioner from interfering with the said right of the respondent and other villagers.2. The facts of the case are briefly these; on the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police that the respondent (the revision petitioner herein) obstructed the mamool pathway running through his lands and that such obstruction was likely to lead to a breach of the peace, the Ex-officio First Class Magistrate passed a preliminary order calling upon the parties to file documents and affidavits and let in evidence to substantiate their claims. The revision petitioner filed a written statement contending th...
Tag this Judgment!C. Bhaktavatsalam Vs. V. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad177; 1969CriLJ618
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed by the first accused in C. C. 2270 of 1967 against the order of the Sixth Presidency Magistrate overruling certain preliminary objections raised by him. The facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding the points raised in this petition are briefly these:--The respondent, V. Govindarajulu, a retired Deputy Administrator-General and Official Trustee, Madras, filed a private complaint against the revision petitioner and two others alleging that they had committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts in respect of certain trust properties of Saidapet Annadhana Samajam which is a public charitable society, of which the petitioner was the secretary and the other two accused were the President and Treasurer, respectively. The Sixth Presidency Magistrate took the case on file. The revision petitioner filed a petition before the learned Magistrate alleging firstly, that the respondent was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Gemini Studios Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1968
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ243Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. The studio magnates of Gemini, Vijaya and A.V.M. have filed these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition No. 843 of 1965 is to quash the order of the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras, requiring the Collector of Madras under Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act to recover a sum of Rs. 44,336 from the proprietors of the Gemini Studios. Writ Petitions Nos. 3093 of 1965 and 4594 of 1965 are to forbear the respondents, namely the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, and the Collector of Chingleput from collecting or recovering the employees, special contribution under Section 73-D of the Employees' State Insurance Act. The Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation has demanded the payment of Rs. 43,234 from the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3093 of 11165 (Vsjaya Productions) and has issued notices intending to take coercive steps to the petitioner in Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Sarma Vs. Ayeesha Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad470; (1969)1MLJ427
Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiffs. He sold the suit property on 24-1-1956 to the defendant. On the same date, the defendant executed a registered deed of agreement for resale in favour of the plaintiffs' father. On 12-7-1957. the plaintiffs' father assigned the rights under the agreement of resale in his favour to the plaintiffs. To the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance, the defendant's contention was that the father of the plaintiffs had no right to assign the agreement of reconveyance, that there was no valid tender and that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs were minors. The only question of substance that was argued before this Court was that the plaintiffs could not maintain this suit as they are minors and the test of mutuality is not satisfied in this case. The plaintiffs based their contention on the decision in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin. (1911) Cal 23...
Tag this Judgment!V. Vr. N. Vr. Nagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR255(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The first appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was assessed to income-tax for the year 1941-42 and the tax payable by him was determined to be Rs. 13,661-3-0. After deducting certain payments made by the appellant and allowance for a refund, a revised assessment order was made which resulted in fixing the appellant's liability at Rs. 9,244.69. The appellant sought for extension of time to pay the amount, and time was being granted. This was principally due to the reason that the appellant claimed that he was assessed to tax in Burma as well. In 1951, the department issued certificate to the Collector for realising the amount due under Section 46(2) of the Income-tax Act. Thereupon, the appellant moved the High Court by way of writ and the appellant partly succeeded therein, but his liability to pay the amount stated was not affected by that writ proceeding. Finally, the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, laid the suit. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC436(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. In this batch of cases the constitutional validity of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and of the opening words of Sub-section (4) of that section, which make Sub-section (1) inapplicable in certain contingencies is raised. In Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1967] 20 S.T.C. 150 to which one of us was a party, this Court struck down Sub-sections (2), (2A) arid (5) of Section 8 on the ground that they violated Articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution. This was on the view that the differential rates or exemptions in various States had an unequal burden on same or similar goods which affected their free movement or flow of inter-State trade and commerce. It was pointed out that the differential rates or exemptions obtaining in the several States if automatically applied by virtue of Section 8(2) to Central taxation, they would certainly have the effect of discriminating between the goods of one State...
Tag this Judgment!A. Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. and ors. Vs. the Special Deputy Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC455(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The substantial question in this batch of writ petitions is as to the validity of Section 2 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Special Provisions) Act, 1964. There are also certain other grounds raised for the assessees, who are the petitioners which, in most part, turn on the construction of that Act. All these petitions cover two periods, the one between 1st April, 1955, and 31st March, 1957, and the other between 1st April, 1957, to 31st March, 1959. In each of these cases the assessee concerned, a resident dealer in hides and skins, purchased raw hides outside the State of Madras which he imported into this State and after tanning, sold the dressed hides and skins to local dealers. By G.O. Press No. 2733, Revenue, dated 3rd September, 1955, Rule 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, was substituted by a new Rule which specified the single point at which purchases and sales of raw hides or dressed hides as the case may be, were char...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimal L. Shah Vs. Phillips India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1167
Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The appellant Hazarimal L. Shah was convicted under Section 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, by the second Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The prosecution case is briefly this : Philips India Ltd., a registered firm manufacturing and dealing in all varieties of Electrical goods under the distinctive trade mark Philips' is the complainant in this case. They are manufacturers of electrical lamps of 100 W, 60 W, 40 W and 25 W which earned a great reputation in the market. They have acquired exclusive right to use the trade mark. The complainant had information that some spun', ous and inferior quality bulbs under the trade mark 'Philips' were being sold in the shop of the appellant at No. 128.A Nainiappa Naicker St. Madras. P. W. 4, B. Venkappa Naick, a Research Investigator of the Madras School of Social Work who usually used to purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramanuja Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ279
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. 1. The revision petitioners were accused 1 to 3 and 4 and 8 in C.C. No. 1303 of 1965, the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore. Accused 1 to 3. were convicted under Sections 143, 447 read with 114 and 379 read with 114, Indian Penal Code, and they were sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 40, On each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks on each count-Accused 4 and 8 were convicted under Sections 143, 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, and each was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 under each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks on each count, by the Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore. On appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed by the District Magistrate, South Arcot.2. The short point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the petitioners, in the circumstances of this case, would be entitled to a bona fide claim of right to the properties in question. To appreciate this p...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathi Kamalambal Vs. Srinivasa Odayar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ487
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One Kumaraswamy Odayar died in about 1930 unmarried survived by his mother Soundarathammal and his sister Kamalathammal. On the death of Kumaraswamy Odayar, Soundarathammal succeeded to the property as his mother. On 25th November. 1955 Soundarathammal and her daughter Kamalathammal jointly executed a settlement deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Kamalambal, the sister's daughter of Soundarathammal. Soundarathammal herself died in 1957 and Kamalathammal died later. The first respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 367 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Valangiman at Kumbakonam for recovery of possession of the suit property with future profits. Before the suit, Kamalambal had alienated the property to Rathanavelu Odayar and one Ratnaswamy Odayar was in possession of the property as lessee under Rathanavelu Odayar. Therefore, in the suit he impleaded Kamalambal as the first defendant, Rathanavelu Odayar as the 2nd defendant and Ratn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »