Chennai Court March 1972 Judgments
P.L. Chakrapani Naidu Vs. T. Gopal Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad8
Ramamurti, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits which were heard and tried together and disposed of by a common judgment of the City Civil Court, Madras, as the subject-matter in dispute and the points in controversy are the same and identical. The suit property involved is door no. 78 Paper Mills Road, Perambur and the main question in controversy relates to the truth and validity and the legality of the auction sale said to have been held by the auctioneer on behalf of the motgagee exercising the powers under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit, O. S. No. 2701 of 1959 has been filed by the three plaintiffs the mortgagors impeaching the auction sale. The first defendant, Rajeswari Ammal is the assignee from the original mortgagee Lokambal, the second defendant Chandramani and Co., is the auctioneer the third defendant Chakrapani Naidu is the successful bidder and purchaser in the auction and the fourth defendant Natesa Mudaliar is a subsequent mortgagee. The ...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Chakrapani Naidu and Vs. T. Gopal Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ390
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits which were heard and tried together and disposed of by a common judgment by the City Civil Court, Madras, as the subject-matter in dispute and the points in controversy are the same and identical. The suit property involved is door No. 78, Paper Mills Road, Perambur, and the main question in controversy relates to the truth, validity and the legality of the auction sale said to have been held by the auctioneer on behalf of the mortgagee exercising powers under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Suit O.S. No. 2701 of 1959 has been filed by the three plaintiffs the mortgagors, impeaching the auction sale. The first defendant, Rajeswari Ammal, is the assignee from the original mortgagee Lokambal, the second defendant Chandramani and Co., is the auctioneer, the third defendant Chakrapani Naidu is the successful bidder and purchaser in the auction and the fourth defendant Natesa Mudaliar is a subsequent mortgagee. Th...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Nallathambi Goundan Vs. Vijaya Raghavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ535
S. Maharajan, J.1. The second defendant appeals.The suit out of which the appeal arises was laid in forma pauperis by respondents 1 to 3, who were minors and were represented by their next friend and mother Kamalammal, for partition and separate possession of their 3/8th share in the suit properties with mesne profits and costs. Sadagopan, who is no other than the father of the plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 3) was impleaded as the first defendant (fourth respondent herein). Najjathambi Goundan, the appellant, figured as the second defendant in the suit.2. The facts leading to the institution of the suit may be briefly stated : Vijayaraghavan, Venkatesan and Ranganathan, the plaintiffs in the suit, are the three, sons of Sadagopan, the first defendant, whose father Venkatesa Iyengar instituted two suits O.S. Nos. 2 and 26 of 1945 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, for specific performance of two agreements of sale in respect of the suit properties. One agreement related to a portion of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. A.M. Abdul Rahman Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR219(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following two questions have been referred under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ') on application by the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the ciicumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the redistribution of the profit sharing ratio on the admission of the two partners did not amount to a gift by the assessee of a portion of his share in the goodwill of the firm ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surrender or abandonment by the assessee of a share in the goodwill of the business in favour of his two children was bona fide and, therefore, did not amount to a gift within the meaning of Section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act ' 2. The assessee was carrying on a business in tobacco as sole proprietor. On June 9, 1954, he converted his business into a partnership business consi...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan and Company Vs. Deputy Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1972
Reported in: 1980CENCUS250D; 1977(1)ELT193(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These writ petitions coming on for hearing on Monday 28th and Tuesday 29th day of February 1972 upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 7-2-1967 and made herein and the relevant records on the file of the Respondents herein and comprised in the return of the Respondent herein to the Writs made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. K. Venugopal, advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Mr. K. Parasaran, Central Government standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent in both the petitions and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:-2. One Murugan and Company, the petitioner in W.P. No. 265 of 1967 is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacture of French Polish at Pudukottai. It had the requisite licence for the same under the Madras Denatured Spirit (Methyl) Alcohol and varnish (French Polish) Rules 1959. In D...
Tag this Judgment!Aggarwal Bros. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1972
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT82(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One Messrs Ramakrishna Kulwantrai held a licence L. 4 No. 3 of 1953 for the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under tariff Item 26AA of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for their factory located at 4B/4C, North Railway Terminus Road, Royapuram, Madras 13. The petitioners herein purchased this factory and applied for transfer of the licence on 16-10-63 and a fresh licence was issued in terms of the provisions of Rule 178(3) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The transferor had the benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 131/62, dated 13-6-62. But the petitioners who are transferees of the factory were held not entitled to the exemption under the said notification as they had applied for licence after 13-6-62 and the benefit of exemption under the notification was not available to new licensees. In that view the Excise authorities issued a demand unde...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Pakkiriswamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. K.P. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad36
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 675 of 1957 on the file of the City Civil Court. Madras. whose suit was dismissed by the learned IV Assistant Judge on a preliminary point is the appellant before this court. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, they being the sons of one Parthasarathi Mudaliar, who died in 1945. The 16th defendant is the widow of the deceased Parthasarathi Mudaliar while the 9th defendant is the daughter of the deceased. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff in forma pauperis for declaration that certain alienations of properties belonging to the joint family effected by the first defendant are null and void and not binding upon him and for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in all items of the properties except arable lands and one half share in arable lands. The case of the plaintiff was that the ancestral business was one in yam in Kotwal Bazar and the properties were acquired out of the income from that business and that the fir...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Pakkiriswamy Mudaliar by His Wife and Next Friend Padmavathi Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ341
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 675 of 1957 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras, whose suit was dismissed by the learned Fourth-Assistant Judge on a preliminary point is the appellant before this Court. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, they being the sons of one Parthasarathy Mudaliar who died in 1945. The 16th defendant is the widow of the deceased Parthasarathy Mudaliar while the 9th defendant is the daughter of the deceased. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff in forma pauperis for declaration that certain. alienations of properties belonging to the joint family effected by the first defendant are null and void and not binding upon him and for partition-and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all items of the properties except arable lands and one half share in arable lands. The case of the plaintiff was that the ancestral business was one in yam in Kothwal Bazaar and the properties were acquired out of the income from that busines...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ110
Venkatraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore (West) Division by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the offence of the murder of his wife under Section 302 I.P.C. in that he stabbed her to death on 3.11.1970 about 10-30 a m in Udumalpet. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to imprisonment for life.2. The appellant and his wife were married about two years before. They had two children. P. W. 1 is the husband of the appellant's sister and the appellant's wife (deceased) was also the mother's sister's daughter of P. W. 1. The evidence of P. W. 1 shows that some two or three months before the occurrence! the appellant was insane and was kept in chains in his house in Periakulam in Madurai District. P. W. 1 went Over there.3. After some time, about three days prior to the occurrence, the appellant and his wife came to the house of P. W. 1 in Udumalpet. On a Sunday two days prior to the occurrence, they...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Srinivasan Vs. Commissioner of Expenditure-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR146(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife, and his four minor children. During the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the assessee, in his capacity as karta of the said family, spent Rs. 9,529 and Rs. 21,643, respectively, for the benefit of his wife and minor children. The Hindu undivided family became disrupted on December 21, 1959, and in the family partition certain properties were allotted to the wife and minor children of the assessee. After the said partition, in the assessment year 1961-62, a sum of Rs. 13,923 was spent by the wife and children from out of the properties allotted to them.2. The assessee filed separate returns for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, one in each year in his individual capacity and another in his capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family. In his individual returns he did not include the expenditure incurred by him as karta of the family for the benefit of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »