Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad46; (1972)2MLJ145
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. The petitioners filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,627.32 from the defendant being the arrears of rent.. The petitioners had previously filed O.S. No. 244 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam and attached the house property belonging to the respondent worth about Rs. 4,000. Along with the present suit the petitioners filed I.A. No. 2263 of 1971 under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment before judgment of the oil engine fitted to the well on the ground that the respondent was trying to sell the oil engine, that he is heavily involved in debts and that the plaintiffs cannot realise the decree if the oil engine is allowed to be sold.2. The respondent (defendant) filed a counter contending that he was not trying to sell the oil engine, that the oil engine being an agricultural implement is not liable for attachment under Section 60(1)(b) of the Code. The lower Court dismissed the application holding that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ113
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the III Presidency Magistrate, convicting the accused for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C.The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on the 18th day of June. 1968. he cheated the Special District Educational Officer. Chingleput, (P. W. 2). by dishonestly inducing him to select the accused for the post of drawing Master, by falsely representing that the accused had the minimum general qualification. The prosecution sought to prove the offence against the accused by the testimony of P. W 2 who deposed in his evidence that the candidates should have passed the Higher Grade Drawing. He added that they should have passed III Form also. Then he referred to Ex. R. 4 the report from Headmaster of the High School, Heyyadupakkam. He also stated that the the accused gave a bogus certificate to (the effect that he had passed III Form. But. in cross-examination. P. W. 2. admitted that the accused produced the technical c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1974CriLJ61
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal arising from the conviction of the appellant Dhanalakshmi for an offence under Section 3 (1) of the Suppression of Inv moral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956).2. P. W. 3 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Madras and the Special Officer to detect cases under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956). He Hot reliable information that the accused is keeping a brothel having prostitutes in her house by collecting hire charges at the rate of Rs. 50 for having sexual intercourse with the prostitute at premises No. 39 North Road West C. I. T. Nagar, Saidapet, Madras.3. On 13-10-1969, his informant told him that the brothel keeper, viz., the accused was ready to receive the visitor. P. W. 3 proposed to conduct the raid of the brothel. Necessary arrangements were made. One Dhanasekaran, P. W. 1, working as a helper in Simpson Group Co., was asked to be a decoy witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ143
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first respondent was an employee in the Rousdon Mullai Estate, which is a plantation estate. He retired from service on 31st March 1966, and the case of the petitioner is that his services were extended ad hoc and not on a regular basis, from 1st April, 1966 to end with 31st March 1967. After completing such a year of ad hoc service, the first respondent claimed that he was entitled to a month's leave for such service rendered by him during 1966-67 and on refusal of such leave by the management, he approached the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for monetary computation of his alleged benefit of leave which was wrongfully refused by the management. The Labour Court finds that the refusal was wrongful and there is no challenge as against this finding of fact. Bat the Labour Court went further and was of the view that as such earned benefit was not availed of by the first respondent, the first respondent would be entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1972]84ITR788(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byV. RAMASWAMI J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question that has been referred for our opinion is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no justification for disallowing interest payment of Rs. 12,413 for the assessment year 1960-61 ?'The assessee is a Private Limited Company carrying on money-lending business. For the assessment year 1960-61 the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,68,567. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,02,092 during the accounting year by way of interest on loans borrowed by it and claimed allowance of this amount under section 10(2) (iii) of the Act. The fact as found by the Income-tax Officer is while the company had paid interest on its borrowings at an average rate of 6.01 per cent., it had charged interest only at the 4.92 per cent. on its lendings. The Income-tax Officer sought to disallow the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad99
1. The first defendant is the appellant. She unsuccessfully resisted the suit filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff for possession of the suit properties together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that his father, the second defendant effected a settlement deed Ex. A-2, dated 21-12-1959, in respect of the suit properties in favor of the first defendant nominally in view of the land ceiling legislation, that the said settlement deed was not intended to be acted upon, that as he was born on 2-5-1960, shortly after the settlement deed, he is entitled to avoid the said settlement deed executed by the father, that even otherwise the second defendant had no power to execute a settlement deed in favor of the first defendant in respect of the coparcenary properties and that the first defendant cannot claim any title on the basis of the said settlement deed. It was also his case that the alienation made be the first defendant of some properties in favor of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad104
1. Second Appeal No. 1432 of 1968 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 292 of 1963 arising out of O. S. No. 2175 of 1959 and the plaintiffs are the appellants. S. A. No. 1604 of 1969 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 196 of 1967 arising out of O. S. 899 of 1960 and the second defendant is the appellant.2. O. S. No. 2175 of 1959 is a suit for a declaration that the suit property measuring about 19 grounds and 321 sq. ft. described in the plaint schedule is not a wakf property and the defendant in that suit is the Madras State Wakf Board. O. S. No. 899 of 1960 was filed by one Mir Sardar Ali for a declaration that the property which was the subject-matter in O. S. 2175 of 1959 is a Shia Wakf and that he was the mutavalli of the property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his management of the property. The first defendant in this suit is the Madras State Wakf Board and the second defendant is the first p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ222
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1432 of 1968 has been filed against the Judgment and decree in A.S. No. 292 of 1963, arising out of O.S. No. 2175 of 1959 and the plaintiffs are the appellants. Second Appeal No. 1604 of 1969, has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 196 of 1967, arising out of O.S. No. 899 of i960 and the second defendant is the appellant. O.S. No. 2175 of 1959 is a suit for a declaration that the suit property measuring about 19 grounds and 321 square feet described in the plaint schedule is not a wakf property and the defendant in that suit is the Madras State Wakf Board. O.S. No. 899 of 1960, was filed by one, Mir Sardar All, for a declaration that the property which was the subject-matter in O.S. No. 2175 of 1959 is a Shia Wakf and that he was the Muthavalli of the property and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his management of the property. The first defendant in this suit is the Madras State Wakf Board and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ283
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. She unsuccessfully resisted the suit filed by the first respondent herein as plaintiff for possession of the suit properties together with past and future mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that his father, the second defendant, effected a settlement deed Exhibit A-2 dated 21st December, 1959, in respect of the suit properties in favour of the first defendant nominally in View of the land ceiling legislation, that the said settlement deed was not intended to be acted upon, that as he was born on 2nd May, 1960, shortly after the settlement deed, he is entitled to avoid the said settlement deed executed by the father, that even otherwise the second defendant had no power to execute a settlement deed in favour of the first defendant in respect of the coparcenary properties, and that the first defendant cannot claim any title on the basis of the said settlement deed. It was also his case that the alienation made by the first def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad439
1. On 7th July 1925, the Government of Madras granted to the Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, a licence under Section 3(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as " the 1910 Act") for supply of electrical energy to the towns of Tiruchirapalli and Srirangam. This licence with its conditions has been marked as Ex. A.94 in these proceedings. The Tiruchirapalli Municipality had its Head Water works and sub-pumping station run on electricity. Under Ex. A.1 dated 31st October 1934, the said Tiruchirapalli-Srirangam Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., Tiruchirapalli, entered into an agreement with the Tiruchirapalli Municipality for supply of electricity for the purpose of running the Head Water works sub-water works and other electric power driven installations within the Municipal limits. Clause 10 of this agreement dealt with the charge payable by the Municipality for the electrical energy supplied to it and the said cla...
Tag this Judgment!