Chennai Court June 1968 Judgments
In Re: Babu Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ88
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 332, Indian Penal Code,, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 9425 of 1965.2. The charge against the petitioner is that he voluntarily caused hurt to P.W. 1 Kuppuswamy, a lineman and Palani (P.W. 2), a helper in the Madras Electricity System at about 10 a.m. on 1st June, 1965, with a view to deter them from doing their duty, namely, inspecting the main switch in the petitioner's house at No. 5, Pillayar Koil Street, Triplicane, Madras.3. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly these. P.W. 5, J.S. Victor, the Supervisor in the Madras Electricity System, Mount Road, Madras, received at ele-phonic message on 1st June, 1965, from P.W. 3 Annamalai Chettiar regarding failure of current in his shop at about 9-40 a.m. Thereupon he sent for P.W. 1 Kuppuswami, a lineman, P.W. 2 Palani, a helper an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.N.N. Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas287(Mad); [1969]72ITR497(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This reference relating to the assessment years 1955-56 to 1960-61 raises the problem of application, to the facts, of Section 12(iv) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, before and after its amendment in 1956. Clause (iv) was recast in that year and took the shape of Sub-section (2) of that section. Clause (iv), as originally stood, was to this effect that:' No banking company shall carry on business in any Province of India unless it satisfies (among other conditions) that the voting rights of any one shareholder do not exceed five per cent. of the total voting rights of all the shareholders............'2. The section had a proviso with which we are not concerned. As amended in 1950, Sub-section (2) of Section 12 stated that no person holding shares in a banking company shall, in respect of any shares held by him, exercise voting rights on poll in excess of 5 per cent. of the total voting rights of the shareholders of the banking company. Though, in substance and eff...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Mudaliar Vs. Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ335
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of Civil Revision Petitions, an interesting question has been raised, but the result, however, as is to be presently demonstrated, is very unfortunate. The petitioner in all these petitions is the same and is the owner of motor vehicles. The respondents are the legal representatives of three deceased persons who were involved in a fatal accident. The question that is argued in these petitions is whether the award secured by the respondents from the Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, can be executed in a civil Court. The respondents filed execution petitions on the foot of the award secured by them from the Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the Court of the District Judge, Salem. An objection was raised by the petitioner that the Execution Petition is not maintainable in the civil Court as there is no provision for such execution of an award under the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned District Judge, however, thought that...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Selvaraj Vs. V. Narasimha Rao by Power Agent V. Sethu Rao and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ587
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Both the tenant and the landlord aggrieved against the legality, regularity and propriety of the order of the learned District Judge of West Thanjavur, have filed these two revision petitions, the former being the one filed by the tenant and the latter by the landlord. It is unnecessary to repeat the entire facts which have been clearly stated by the learned District Judge in his order. Suffice it however to observe the relevant details.2. The tenant, petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, was occupying the premises in question in its entirety from 1956. The premises, however, contained two distinct compartments, one the front portion thereof which was used for non-residential purposes, and the other the back portion which was at all times being used for residential purposes. In or about 1962, the tenant (petitioner in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and respondent in C.R.P. No. 1620 of 1965) and the landlord (respondent in C.R.P. No. 112 of 1965, and petitioner C.R.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. K. Ramakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ272
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner in this case was the tenant against whom an order for eviction was obtained by the respondent landlord on 3rd August, 1957. The agreed rent payable by the petitioner to the landlord was Rs. 21 per month. After the respondent secured an order of eviction in 1957, he attempted to execute the same in the years 1958 and 1961. In fact, it appears that when the execution petition was filed in 1958, a warrant for possession was also issued. It is not, however, clear from the record as to the circumstances under which the execution petition was withdrawn by the landlord. After the withdrawal of the execution petition in 1958, the landlord again filed a petition for possession in the year 1961 which again appears to have been dismissed; the reasons for dismissal, however, are not clear. Thereafter, the Limitation Act of 1963 was enacted which gave apparently to the landlord the benefit to execute the decree within a period of 12 years from the date i...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Ammal and anr. Vs. M.C.A.R.S. Chockalinga thevar Firm, Throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ593
M. Natesan, J.1. The second appeal has been heard along with (Venkataswami Naidu v. Somammal and Anr. : (1969)2MLJ609 .2. The suit properties and another house property, the subject of dispute in (Venkatasami Naidu v. Somammal and Anr. : (1969)2MLJ609 , were purchased by Lakshmiammal mother of the plaintiffs, under two registered sale deeds. The mother died in 1938. The father of plaintiffs Guruswami Nadar executed two othi deeds over the properties, one in l948 and another in 1953, in favour of Mahalinga Nadar, husband of the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff in the present suit, second appellant before me instituted O.S.No. 195 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tirumangalam setting up title of the daughters, that is, the present plaintiffs, to the properties that were purchased in the name of their mother Lakshmiammal, and impugning the validity of the mortgage effected by their father. Mortgagee Mahalinga Nadar and their father Guruswami Nadar were parties to th...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasami Naidu Vs. Sornammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ609
M. Natesan, J.1. This second appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit property, a house in Tirumangakm, Madurai District, and for possession of the same from the defendant, a Court auction-purchaser in execution of a simple money decree. The plaintiffs had been parties to the execution proceedings which led to the sale, having been brought on record as legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, their father. While the trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata and Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, on appeal this plea was overruled and the suit decreed.2. The suit property stood in the name of one Lakshmi Ammal by a sale deed, dated 6th September, 1924. The plaintiffs are daughters of this Lakshmiammal and their father is one Guruswami Nadar. This Guruswami Nadar othied the property in favour of Mahalinga Nadar, son-in-law of Gurusami Nadar and husband of the first plaintiff, for Rs. 1,000 on 8th July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sundaram Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR273(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The short point in this reference is whether distributable profit for purposes of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, would include notional dividend. We are concerned with the assessment year 1955-56. The assessee is a private limited company which was regularly assessed for that year in February, 1956, on a total income of Rs. 67,680. Later, finding that a sum of Rs. 1,666 as declared to be notional dividend in favour of the assessee by another company by name the Madras Motor Insurance Company Limited in which the assessee held shares, the assessment was reopened and in view of this notional dividend section 23A was invoked and applied. The Appellate Tribunal, disagreeing with the departmental view, held that section 23A proceeded on the assumption that the assessee had a balance of profit which it could distribute but failed to do so. Since the sum of Rs. 1,666, in fact, never came into the accounts of the assessee, the Tribunal was of the view that sect...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohamed Elias and Co. and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC27(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions are concerned with the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. As regards the first year, it is not in dispute that in tax revision cases which came up to this Court, the assessees did not succeed. The orders of this Court in those cases are conclusive. It follows, the assessees who are the petitioners, will not be entitled to relief now in respect of the assessment year 1957-58.2. As for the assessment year 1958-59, reliance is placed on Khader & Co. v. State of Madras [1966] 17 S.T.C. 396 and it is contended that in view of it, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader realises that for the period prior to 1st October, 1958, the contention is correct. He says that for the subsequent period, there is nothing in that decision or the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1967 Since reported as State of Madras v. N. K. Nataraja Mudaliar [1968] 22 S.T.C. 376, which would entitle the assessees to the ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Syed Hanifa Vs. Muhammad Khalifulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad39
ORDERAlagiriswami, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli holding that he was competent to act under Section 476, Cri. P. C. and lay a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections 465 and 471, I. P. C. 2. It should be made clear that the Rent Controller was only deciding the question of his competency to lay a complaint and he had not decided whether it was necessary in the interests of justice to lay such a complaint. That question still remains open. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the Rent Controller is not a civil, criminal or revenue Court, which under Section 476, Cr. P. C. is competent to lay a complaint in respect of any offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) or (c), Criminal P. C. The criteria for deciding what is 'a Court' has been succinctly set forth in the decision of the Supreme Court in Virindar Kumar v. State of Punjab : 1956CriLJ326 '..................It may be stated broadly that wha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »