Chennai Court March 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.
Veerammal Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad244
Palaniswamy, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the third defendant is whether a purchaser in execution of a decree obtained on a prior mortgage in a suit to which the subsequent mortgagee is not a party is entitled to redeem the subsequent mortgage. Defendants 1 and 2, the owners of the suit property, had executed a simple mortgage over the suit property in favour of one Pakkirisami Pandithan and subsequently executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the third defendant, the appellant herein, under a document dated 7-6-1953. Pakkirisami Pandithar sued on his mortgage in O. S. 257 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif of Trivellore, im-pleading defendants 1 and 2 alone and without impleading the 3rd defendant, the subsequent mortgagee, and obtained a decree and brought the hypotheca to sale. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in Court auction and took possession in execution of the sale certificate. The third defendant applied for and o...
Factors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ529
ORDERS. Ganesan, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26th October, 1966, passed by the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A.No. 5107 of 1966. The application before the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, was filed under Section 70 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, for refund of the Court-fees under the following circumstances. The petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 4105 of 1965 for recovering a sum of Rs. 3,500 from the defendant as dividend due to him and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 263 in respect of the said claim. On the contention of the defendant that the suit was not maintainable, as the petitioner had already filed a comprehensive suit, O.S. No. 301 of 1964 including the claim for Rs. 3,500 the petitioner made an endorsement on the plaint to the effect that the suit O.S. No. 4105 of 1965 had been filed by mistake or inadvertence, that he may therefore be permitted to withdraw the suit without prejudice to his...
A.M.S. and Brothers, Represented by A.M. Dawood Shah, Partner Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad152
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner, A. M. S. and Brothers, is engaged in the business of importing liquors into the Union Territory of Pondicherry from other States in India. Under a resolution passed by the 'General Council' in 1906, which has the force of law, the Pondicherry Government was given power to levy tax called 'Consumption Duty' on all foreign liquors imported into the territory of Pondicherry as well as on locally manufactured liquor. After the merger of the former French Territory of Pondicherry in the Indian Union, the above consumtion duty was collected in advance from importers under a scheme called 'Import Duty paid permits'. Only after they had obtained such Import Duty paid Permits, were they allowed to import liquor from other parts of India into Pondicherry limits. In other words, advance payment of consumption duty was made as a condition precedent to the issue of the Import Duty paid Permit. The permit so issued wasvalid for three months from the date of i...
K. Ramraj Vs. Srivilliputhur Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad315
ORDER1. The Srivilliputtur Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the mills, is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 15 members as mentioned in by-law 20 of the mills. Under by-law 20(15) one representative of the workers of the mills elected from among themselves and co-opted by the Board of Directors is entitled to be a members of the Board of Directors. The petitioner, K. Ramraj, employed as an oiler in the fly-frame department of the mills, was elected by the workers of the mills in an election held on 26-12-1968, to fill up the vacancy caused by the expiry of the term of the prior representative of the workers on 31-12-1968. The question of his co-option as a member of the Board of Directors, as required in by law 20(15) of the mills, was in agenda of the meeting of the Board of Directors journed after the first two items of the agenda were disposed of and before the other items of the agenda, including the co-opted as a member of the Board of Directo...
M.N. Kanagasabai Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR672(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The question involved in this tax case is whether a voluntary gesture on the part of an assessee to waive interest, which was admittedly payable to him by a third party and which was assessable under 'other sources', can be treated as an admissible expenditure. The assessee advanced amounts to Jayanthi Films, Madurai Private Ltd., which was a private limited company and which consisted of two shareholders, namely, the assessee and his wife, the former being its managing director. The assessee was submitting returns as the karta of an Hindu undivided family. During the previous year ending March 31, 1962, relevant for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee was running a business under the name and style of 'Rajaram Talkies' which he took on lease. The assessee handed over charge of the theatre during the currency of the previous year to its owners. The advances made by the assessee were entered in the books of account maintained for the theatre business. As on ...
A.M.S. and Brothers, Represented by A.M. Dawood Shah, Partner Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ468
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, A.M.S. and Brothers, is engaged in the business of importing liquors into the Union Territory of Pondicherry from other States in India. Under a resolution passed by the ' General Council ' in 1906, which has the force of law, the Pondicherry Government was given power to levy a tax called ' Consumption Duty ' on all foreign liquors imported into the territory of Pondicherry as well as on locally manufactured liquor. After the merger of the foremer French Territory of Pondicherry in the Indian Union, the above consumption duty was collected in advance from importers under a scheme called ' Import Duty paid Permits.' Only after they had obtained such Import Duty paid Permits, were they allowed to import liquor from other parts of India into Pondicherry limits. In other words, advance payment of consumption duty was made as a condition precedent to the issue of the Import Duty paid Permit. The permit so issued was valid for three months from the...
The State of Madras Represented by Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad316; [1969]24STC274(Mad)
1. This appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the decision of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O. S. No, 161 of 1958 on his file. The plaintiff in the suit was Sri Ramakrishna Mills, Coimbatore and the State of Madras was the defendant. The suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 11.170 alleged by the plaintiff to have been paid under a mistake of fact and law as sales tax to the defendant The plaint allegations for supporting the claim are briefly the following;2. During the sales tax assessment year 1955-56, after the crucial date 6-9-1955, inter-State purchases or sales were not liable to be included in the assessable turnover of a dealer for the purpose of levy of sales tax, by reason of the bar under Article 286(2) of the Constitution. During the aforesaid period, the plaintiff had purchased goods worth Rs. 22,34,142-12-8 from Bombay and Ahmedabad, outside Madras State. The Sales Tax on this turnover came to Rs. 11,170. By a mistake of fact and law,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Gokuldas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR62(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question raised by this reference is covered by S. A. Raju Chettiar v. Collector of Madras, : [1956]29ITR241(Mad) and the order in Tax Case No. 13 of 1965 both of which are against the revenue. But learned counsel for the revenue invited us to re-consider the position on the only ground that in neither of them Lakshminarain Bhadani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, : [1951]20ITR594(SC) had been referred to. We shall presently show that Lakshminarain Bhadani v. Commissioner of Income-tax makes no difference whatever to the conclusion arrived at on the legal position in Tax Case No. 13 of 1965.2. The reference relates to the assessment year 1955-56 for which the assessee, as a Hindu undivided family, of which the karta was one Gokuldas Thulsidas, was charged to tax. He died on April 19, 1957. He had filed the return for the year on April 2, 1957, and the assessment was completed on February 19, 1958, with Suresh Gokuldas succeeding as the karta. A sum of Rs. 64,000 was...
Kaka Hajee Md. Ishaque Sahib Vs. Kaka Md. Saddiq Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ207
ORDERS. Ganesan, J.1. The plaintiff in an un-numbered suit of 1966 pending In the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupattur had filed this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, which is to the effect that, as in substance, the suit is one for cancellation of the documents, Court-fee under Section 40 of the Madras Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, has to be paid.2. The allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties; that, in order to save the properties from the reach of creditors and Income-tax Department, he executed a sham and nominal instrument of deed of gift (hiba) dated 24th April, 1956 in favour of his son, the first defendant and others who were then minors without any intention to transfer the title; that, in any event, the gift deed is void in law as it had not been accepted by any competent person and as no possession was delivered; that the second defendant, by playing fraud on ...
A.P.M.S. Mohammed Ali Maraikayar and ors. Vs. the Special Officer for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ556
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioners and the second respondent were elected on 21st September, 1966 as members of the committee to manage the Masjide Mahmood Mosque, Pudupet, Madras, in accordance with a scheme framed in C.S. No. 309 of 1935, on the file of this Court, and the selection of the committee was approved by the State Wakf Board on 29th September, 1966. On 6th February, 1968, the Committee passed a resolution removing the second respondent herein from the membership of the Mutavalli Committee, in a meeting in which the petitioners participated and voted for the resolution. The second respondent approached the Wakf Board, and the Special Officer, who is exercising the powers of the Board, passed an order in W.A. No. 5 of 1968 directing the second respondent to be restored to the membership of the Committee on the ground that the removal of the second respondent was not made on proper grounds, that the alleged ground of removal did not fall within one or other of the disqualifi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »