Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1972]86ITR533(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs transferred by the deceased to his grand-nephews was includible in the estate of the deceased that passed on his death ?'2. The deceased, Bankatlal Lahoti, was a partner in the firm of M/s. Dayaram Surajmal, which was carrying on business as bankers. On October 4, 1952, he transferred a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each to the three minor grandsons of his deceased brother. The procedure adopted for the transfer was as follows: The deceased drew a cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs against his account with M/s. Dayaram Surajmal. The cheque was in favour of M/s. Dayaram Surajmal. The account of the deceased with the said firm was debited with the sum of Rs, 3 lakhs' and on the same day simultaneously the three accounts with the said firm of the minor don...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ205
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner was elected President of the Ammur Town Panchayat which is a unit of the Wallajah Panchayat Union Council. The Council was duly constituted in accordance with law and it began to function after electing or co-opting such of those women members whom the Council has to co-opt under the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The result was that the Panchayat Union Council duly constituted itself for the purpose of administration and functioning as provided under the Act and were carrying on their statutory duties. On 4th November, 1971 a notification was issued by the State Government in exercise of their powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 155 whereunder the Union Council was dissolved with effect from 4th November, 1971. It is not necessary to set out the grounds which prompted the State Government to act under Section 155(1). In the very same notification a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]87ITR602(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act is this :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the shares held by the assessee in the Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been valued in accordance with the Wealth-tax Act '2. The assessee held 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in a public limited company called the ' Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. ', which carried on business of motor and general insurance. The shares of the company are not quoted in the share market. As on the valuation dates, on March 31, 1960, and March 31, 1961, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, the assessee had valued these shares for the purpose of inclusion in his net wealth at their face value of Rs. 100 per share. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept the said valuation. He worked out their value on the basis of the balance sheet of the company as on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ727
Maharajan, J.1. There is little substance in this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents. The case of the complainant was that he granted a mortgage in favour of the first accused for Rs. 10,000/- in February, 1967, and at the time of the execution of the mortgage, he handed over five prior title deeds to the first accused that subsequently he got the mortgage discharged through the Land Mortgage Bank, and that despite the discharge, the mortgagee failed to hand over the prior title deeds and was therefore guilty of the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.2. The case of the accused was that actually the title deeds were handed over by them to the Land Mortgage Bank and the latter Bank must have misplaced the same.3. Even assuming the complainant's case to be true, no offence has been made out. If at the time of the discharge of the mortgage, the mortgagee had even perversely refused to return the title deeds, it might constitute a violation of an implied cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad42
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 255 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellant Court is the appellant in this second appeal. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. They together own a half share in the land and well in S. No. 33 in Negamam village, whereas the other half share belongs to the plaintiff. Likewise, the defendants own a half share in S. Nos. 31 and 35 of the same village, whereas the other half share belongs to the plaintiff. It is the common case of the parties that the well in S. No. 33 is being enjoyed in common by turns, the plaintiff using the well continuously for the first six days and the defendants likewise using for a similar period subsequently to irrigate their respective shares in S. Nos. 31, 33, and 35. There is a common channel lying in the eastern extremity of S. No. 33. East of that channel the position of which is indicated in the Commissioner's plan Ex. C-2, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1972Mad377
1. The minor plaintiff in O.S. No. 110 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, is the appellant. He is the only son of the first defendant. The first defendant, for himself and as guardian of the minor plaintiff, executed two sale deeds, one in favour of the second defendant and the other in favour of the third defendant under Exs. B.2 and B.16, both on 8-6-1960 in respect of the suit properties. This suit was laid for cancellation of these sale deeds on the allegations that the first defendant was leading a wayward life and was given to immoral habits, and that the sale deeds were not binding upon the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the sale deeds were executed for illegal and immoral purposes. But the trial Judge took the view that inasmuch as the first defendant had not obtained the leave of the court as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ358
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by one S. Chinnaswamy, the accused-appellant, against the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras convicting the accused for an offence under Section 65 of the City Police Act. I extract here below the substance of the accusation filed by the Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of the said accusation, the charge is supposed to have been read out to the accused. The averment in the charge-sheet is as follows:That on 27.10.1969 at about 4.45 hours at W.Q. III Wharf Harbour, the accused noted in the charge-sheet was found in possession of a cloth bundle containing about 5 litres of boiled rice which was suspected to be a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained from the Harbour.Hence the charge....The learned Magistrate questioned the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. He has recorded as follows:A (accused) admits the offence. (Original in Tamil transliterated 'Un-maidaan' - Ed.)The accused is f.g. (found guilty) and admonis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ732
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1.The respondent is a partner in M/s. T.S. Baba Sahib and Co. dealers in foodgrains at Polur, a village in the North Arcot District. On 13.6.1968, the District Supply Officer of this district, inspected his company and detected that he had 37 bags of ragi. These bags belonged to Sriramulu Chettiar, the respondent, who was a partner in this firm. He had no licence under the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. He contended that he was under the bona fide impression that no separate licence was necessary for dealing in ragi. Observing that he had violated Clauses 3(1) and (2) of the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1964, the Collector, acting under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Confiscated the 37 bags to Government. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. North Arcot and he. by his order in Crl. M.P. No. 126 of 1969, set aside the confiscation after administering a warning to him. The correctness of this ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad148
ORDER1. All the above matters are connected and arise out of the same proceedings, and therefore they are dealt with together.In O. P. No. 3 of 1965 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, one D. S. Swamikannu Pillai was appointed as personal as well as property guardian of his minor sons, Paranjothi and five others under provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The minors get certain properties by way of gift from a relation, one D. Rejendran Pillai. Even at the time of the gift by the said Rajendran Pillai there was a subsisting mortgage debt on the property gifted. The mortgagee filed a suit O. S. No. 309 of 1964 and obtained a decree. On the ground that the mortgagee was taking out execution proceedings to realize the sum of Rs. 4,000/- due under the mortgage and that if the property is sold in court auction it would fetch a low price, the said guardian filed an application before the lower court in I. A. 526 of 1965 seeking permission to sell the property of the minors by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad176
1. The plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit lands as such tenant and was successful in the trial court but failed in the lower appellate court is the appellant. The trial court held that the transaction under Ex. A-1 was a lease. But the lower appellate court held it to be a license. The question in this second appeal is as to whether the transaction under Ex. A-1 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant is a lease or a license.2. It appears that the suit land belongs to one Ellamman temple and that it is a garden where Jasmine plants have been raised. The plaintiff was put in possession of the flower garden for a period of ten years on 5-5-1956 for an annual payment of Rs. 350/-. As the plaintiff committed default in payment of the said amoun...
Tag this Judgment!