Chennai Court February 1969 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.
V.K. Elayalwar Vs. the Registrar, Madras High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ343
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rules were framed to regulate proceedings under Article 226. Rule 1 requires that an application for a direction, order or writ, including a writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto or prohibition, shall be by and original petition. Under Rule 2-A, it is provided that every such petition shall be presented within six months from the date of the order against which the relief is sought; and where such petition is presented after six months a petition to excuse the delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay should also be filed. By Rule 3 every such petition, after it is numbered, shall be posted for orders as to the issue of notice to the respondent, and the Court after hearing the petitioner or his advocate may direct notice to issue or may reject the petition. By Rule 5 it is required that subject to the directions of the Court, the p...
In Re: Sister Gemma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad262
Ismail, J.1. This petition has been presented under Sections 4, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and Clauses 17 and 20 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner is a member of a Christian Religious congregation known as the Salesian Missionaries of Mary Immaculate. The members of the congregation are devoted to social work and care of the needy, destitute and sick persons who are unable to look after themselves. The petitioner as a member of the said congregation is at present in charge of the Mercy Home at Kilpauk, Madras which looks after and caters for the abandoned and incurably sick. In the course of her work in the Mercy Home, the petitioner came into the custody of Noel Sanderchan, the minor. She was sent to the Mercv Home as unclaimed, an orphan and destitute by the Sub-Inspector of Police. G. 3. Kilpauk. Madras 10, on 29-12-1967, as having been picked up at Kilpauk Garden road. At the time of her admission the minor was stated to be 5 days old, said to have been born ...
Radhakrishna Films (P.) Ltd., by Chairman S. Kumaraswamy Reddiar Vs. N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ462
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. On 27th October, 1960, a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,48,623 was passed in favour of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 38 of 1958 and certain charges with reference to the said amount were created in respect of materials in the Newtons Studios. Subsequently, E.P. No. 85 of 1961 was filed in execution of that decree and on 5th May, 1961, an order was passed by this Court, on consent of the parties. Under the terms of the consent order, the 1st defendant Company's Managing Director, Dinshaw K. Teherani was appointed Receiver with liberty to draw a sum of Rs. 1,000 per mensum as Receiver's remuneration and the said Receiver was directed to pay the plaintiff-decree-holder on or before 15th day of every month a minimum amount of Rs. 6,500 or net collections whichever was more, towards the satisfaction of the decree dated 27th October, 1960. Certain defaults having been committed by the Receiver, Application No. 895 of 1963 was filed by the 1st defendant before this Court, and in...
V. Amirtham Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR739(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference raises a question as to the character of a single transaction effected by the assessee on December 5, 1960, whetherit was one of an adventure in the nature of trade or an isolated dealing in capital asset giving rise to capital gain. The assessee, who happened to be the wife of one of the directors of a private limited company by name Murugan Transports (P.) Limited, purchased from her husband's brother on August 6, 1960, 37 shares in that company and sold the same at a profit on December 5, 1960, to the brother-in-law and wife of one Chinnaswami Pillai, the managing director of the very same company. Two of this gentleman's daughters were also directors, all the three of whom together held 200 shares as on August 5, 1960. His son possessed 42 shares which he had purchased from one Sundaralinga Asari. On August 6, 1960, one L. G. Varadarajulu, the brother-in-law of the assessee, transferred 45 shares to his brother's wife and 50 shares to the wife of ano...
P.S. Shanmugham Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ393
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal arises from an order declining to interfere with the refusal by the Deputy Commissioner of Police to grant a licence to the appellant under Section 35 of the Madras City Police Act, 1888 to run a lodging house at premises No. 5, Narasingapuram, Mount Road, Madras. The appellant is a lessee of the building at a rental of Rs. 2,000 per mensem and says that he has spent Rs. 15,000, for equipment of the lodging house. Due sanction would appear to have been obtained in October, 1964 from the City Corporation under the provisions of the City Municipal Act for constructing the building designed to be used as a lodging house. By a notice dated 11th January, 1968, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, with reference to the appellant's application for a licence under Section 35, asked him to show cause why it should not be rejected, and the reasons given by the officer were : (1) the street is only about 20 ft. in width and is narrow ; (2) it is one way traffic an...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. M. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad2
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Board of Revenue, Madras, has referred to us, for our decision, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, about the correct classification, for the purposes of levy of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, of an instrument. The specific question propounded to us for decision is whether the instrument dated 20-3-1965 (Deed of dissolution of Partnership) operates both as a deed of dissolution of partnership and a deed of partition.2. Under Article 45 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, for an instrument of partition, as defined by Section 2(15) of the Act, the stamp duty leviable is the same as on a bond for the amount of the value of the separated share or shares of the property. Under Article 46 of the same Schedule, an instrument of dissolution of partnership has to be levied stamp duty of a fixed sum of Rs. 20 in Madras State. Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act provides that any Instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.N. Narayana Raja and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR341(Mad)
Yeeraswami, J. 1. The first of these references relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee was a firm of partnership with 9 partners and carried on business as forest coupe contractors with head office at Ambasamudram and branch offices at several other places within the State of Madras, now Tamil Nadu. The partnership was governed by a deed dated January 25, 1959, which provided, inter alia, for one or more of the partners taking contracts in their names and placing such contracts for the benefit of the firm. As a matter of fact, individual partners entered into coupe contracts with the Government in respect of particular forests, and the same were, however, exploited by the firm on its own account. TheIncome-tax Officer declined to register the firm under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, on various grounds. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the order, and the Tribunal concurred with him. At the stage of the Tribunal, only two grounds survived which t...
T.K.P.R. Ramanatha Chettiar and Brothers and anr. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR811(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The two references pertain to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63. The Tribunal has found that the assessee-firm plied three lorries daring the first year and two lorries during the second which they owned but with their permits not transferred to them but continuing to stand in the names of the original owners. Upon those facts, the Tribunal was of opinion, agreeing with the Commissioner of Income-tax, that inasmuch as the firm operated the lorries without valid permits which was prohibited by Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the firm engaged itself in an unlawful activity, namely, the running of the lorries without avalid permit. Oh that view the registration of the firm which was granted by the Income-tax Officer and subsequently renewed by him stood cancelled! The common question in this reference is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the refusal of renewal of registration under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the ...
P. Narayana Pillai Vs. S. Nagamoney
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ161
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The facts in relation to this proceeding have to be very clearly set forth, in the first instance, for an appreciation of the relatively narrow issue which is involved. In view of the somewhat protracted history of this litigation, we are setting forth only those outstanding facts which illuminate the sole issue now arising for our determination. O. S. No. 49 of 1957, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil, was a suit by the petitioner-appellant for declaring the right of the petitioner-appellant to be in possession of item 1 of the plaint-schedule. That suit itself came to be instituted in the following manner. Item 1 was sold in execution of a decree O. S. No. 973 of 1113 M. E. and was purchased by one Sivanandan in Court auction who, in his turn assigned his rights to the defendant-respondent. When the defendant-respondent attempted to take possession of the property, he was obstructed by the appellant who claimed rights as a tenant put in posse...
T.K.P.R. Ramanatha Chettiar and Bros., Chandra Lorry Service Vs. Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ432
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The two references pertain to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1962-63. The Tribunal has found that the assessee-firm plied three lorries during the first year and two lorries during the second which they owned but with their permits not transferred to them but continuing to stand in the names of the original owners. Upon those facts, the Tribunal was of opinion, agreeing with the Commissioner of Income-tax, that inasmuch as the firm operated the lorries without valid permits which was prohibited by Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the firm engaged itself in an unlawful activity, namely, the running of the lorries without a valid permit. On that view the registration of the firm which was granted by the Income-tax Officer and subsequently renewed by him stood cancelled. The common question in this reference is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the refusal of renewal of registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »