Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad13
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is to recover Rs. 5127/- being the balance of the sale consideration of the lorry said to belong to him (MDR 2974). The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner of the lorry bearing No. MDR 2974, that he sold the lorry to the defendant at Melapalayam on 18-8-1961 for Rs. 9750/- that the defendant made part payment of Rs. 5000/- and took delivery of the lorry, that the sale was completed when delivery of possession of the lorry was given to the purchaser and that he is entitled to recover the balance of sale consideration. The further case put forward is that the lorry originally belonged to one Rajaratnam who sold it to Balasundaram and that he (the plaintiff) purchased the lorry form Balasundaram on 17-4-1961, that in pursuance of the sale to the defendant he made special efforts to get the transfer of the licence in the name of the defendant, that at his own expense he brought Balasundaram, the previous owner, by his letter dated 10-3-1962,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas500(Mad)
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This is an application filed for the purpose of getting permission to implead the official liquidator, High Court, Madras, as party-respondent in Claim Petition No. 229 of 1969, which is now pending before the Additional Labour Court, Madras. The application is by one of the labourers of the liquidated company called Gannon Dunkerly & Co. It is under the administration of the official liquidator. High Court, Madras. The petition has been filed under Section 446(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. It states as follows :'446. Suits stayed on winding-up order.--(1) When a winding-up order has been made or the official liquidator has been appointed as provisional liquidator, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be commenced, or (sic) at the date of the winding-up order, shall be proceeded with, against the company, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.'2. The applicant herein has admittedly filed the claim petition before the lab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)1MLJ344
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the plaint O.S. No. 75 of 1970, as framed, is sustainable. One Mahadeva Iyer, the plaintiff, institutied that suit against his first wife, Krishnammal, praying for a decree in the following terms.1. Declaring that the ex parte order passed in M.C. No. 2 of 1969 by the District Magistrate of Alleppy on 30th April, 1969 is null and void and cannot bind the plaintiff;2. In consequence, directing the defendant, by a permanent injunction, from in any way claiming maintenance against the plaintiff; or, in the alternative,3. Reducing, the rate of maintenance to the sum of Rs. 25 and directing the defendant to receive the same; and4. Granting such further and other reliefs to the plaintiff as this honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.It appears that the defendant obtained an ex parte order in M.C. No. 2 of 1969 on the file of the District Magistrate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad311
ORDER1. This S. R. is sought to be filed by the plaintiff as a civil revision petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Erode. in I. A. No. 289 of 1965 in O. S. No. 87 of 1956. The suit is one for partition. Defendants 102 and 115 belonged to the branch of the first defendant. The office raised an objection and hence it is posted before me for orders.2. It will be relevant to note briefly the facts of the case. One Marimuthu Pillai who owned large extent of properties. died on 10-4-1953 leaving two wives and children. His first wife had two sons who were the first defendant and husband of the third defendant. Defendants 102 and 115 are the sons of the first defendant. The daughters of the third defendant are defendants 4 and 5. The second wife of Marimuthu Pillai is the second defendant. Her son is the plaintiff. An interim final decree was passed in respect of the relief's prayed for. The following terms of the decree may be relevant for consideration:'.............. 4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]92ITR366(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the respondent made under Section 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1955-56 to 1958-59, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner in all these cases was a partner in Messrs. T. M. Abdul Rahim Sahib and Company. The said firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1954, with seven partners of whom the petitioner was one. The firm carried on business in manufacture of beedis and sale of beedi leaves and beedi tobacco. On September 27, 1960, the petitioner retired from the firm, but the other partners continued to carry on the business under the same name and style. On October 4, 1960, the petitioner also executed a deed in favour of the continuing partners relinquishing his right, title and interest in the business for a consideration of Rs. 30,000. On July 12, 1961, the continuing partners of the firm executed a deed of indemnity indemnifying th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR327(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners were assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1956-57 on 31st July, 1956. In the said assessment the Income-tax Officer, inter alia, included a sum of Rs. 5,36,034 as profit in respect of sales of building, plant and machinery as coming within the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called ' the Act ') The said assessment was challenged unsuccessfully before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There was an appeal to the Tribunal by the petitioners contending that no part of the profit on the sale of the building, plant and machinery could be assessed to tax under the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) and that if any portion of the profit is so assessable, it was only Rs. 3,23,461. Having failed before the Tribunal on both the grounds, there was a reference to this court at the instance of the petitioners. This court on reference held by its judgment dated December 7, 1960, in T. C. No. 74 of 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1980]46STC162(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.Appendix1. The respondents herein are dealers in hides and skins. But for the assessment year 1954-55, they did not take out a licence under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1939. After considering the assessability of the transaction of sales of hides and skins by the respondents during that year, the assessing officer passed a nil assessment order on 17th October, 1959, following the decision of this Court in Noor Mohamed and Co. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. 792, wherein it was held that an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins cannot be brought to charge under the Act. But this nil assessment order passed by the assessing authority was not communicated to the respondents.2. Later, on 12th August, 1960, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Noor Mohammed and Company [1960] 11 S.T.C. 570 held that an unlicensed dealer in hides and skins cannot claim immunity from payment of sales tax and that while a licensed dealer in hides and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ116
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The above batch of Second Appeals raises an important question of law regarding the method of assessment of buildings owned by the plaintiff in each of the cases situate within the Municipal limits of the defendant-Municipality under Section 82 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The pleadings in each of the suits out of which the above batch of Second Appeals have arisen are of the same pattern and by way of sample I shall set out the pleadings in S.A. No. 1103 of 1970.2. The plaintiff is a public limited company owning the mill premises in D. Nos. 1125 to 1127 in assessment No. 7936 These buildings belong to a class of buildings which can ordinarily be let out It was assessed by Uppilipalayam Panchayat Board to property tax of Rs. 10,700 under which assessment the Ginning Factory was also included. Now the Ginning Factory has been separately assessed. The defendant Council was constituted as a Municipality from 1st April, 1965, with the areas comprise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad51
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession.2. The plaintiff's case is that she purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 7-12-1949 from one Vasudeva Gramani, who was the previous owner of the property, that ever since the purchase, she has been in possession of the suit property and none else has any interest in the same, that the said property is situate in an erstwhile Zamindari, which was taken over by the Government, stood in the name of Vasudeva Gramani, her vendor, that later after the Zamin was taken over by the State of Madras the plaintiff was granted a patta and subsequent to the taking over of the zamin by the State of Madras the plaintiff has been paying kist for the suit land and continues to be in possession of the same, that the defendant has no interest in the suit property, and that he has no title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad258
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, granting, at the instance of the plaintiff, an exparte injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of possession of certain properties which she had purchased in court auction in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the plaintiff's father. Before discussing the questions involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set forth briefly the background in the dispute between the parties. Sundaram Chettiar, the undivided father of Asokan, the plaintiff, who got the ex parte injunction in the court below, purchased a cinema theatre at Rajapalayam. At the time of the purchase he borrowed from one Chockalingam, the husband of the appellant, Mangai Achi, a sum of Rs. 50,000 for making up the sale price. He also mortgaged the theatre for Rs. 50,000 on 19-5-1958 in favor of Chockalingam Chettiar. Subsequently, on 21-7-1959, he granted another mortgage in favor of Ch...
Tag this Judgment!