Chennai Court October 1973 Judgments
Ayyasamy Gounder Vs. Nachimuthu Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad40
Maharajan, J.1. This appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant, Ayyaswami Gounder, is the judgment debtor in O. S. No. 1835 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi. On 30-3-1970 Nachimuthu Gounder, the respondent herein, obtained a decree for Rs. 1633-50 against the appellant. No payment was made towards the decree and on 14-9-1971 the decree-holder filed E. P. 153 of 1971 under Order 21, Rule 11 (2), Civil P. C. praying for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. Notice of this E. P. was ordered and the judgment-debtor was served. As he remained ex parte on 2-11-1971, arrest was ordered. Thereupon, the judgment-debtor engaged counsel and filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order passed on 2-11-1971. This ex parte outer was set aside and the judgment debtor granted time to file his counter to E. P. 153 of 1971. He filed his counter in which he contended that he had no means to pay the decretal amount and that he had in his possession only a small ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sampoorani Ammal Vs. the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ193
K. Veeraswami, C. J.1. One Rathinam Traders was granted a licence by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Supply through the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for import of art silk yarn. The licence was subject to the condition that the goods imported should either be utilised by the importer or sold to other manufacturers of products covered by the Exports Promotion Scheme for Art Silk Fabrics who directly export their products or who sell a part of their products for export. A show cause notice, dated 20th May, 1969 under clause 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, as amended, for taking action under Clause 8 of the Order, was issued to the firm, stating that there was reason to believe that the goods imported against the licence had not been properly utilised or diposed of by them in terms of the conditions imposed on and applicable to the licencee. The firm furnished a reply through one of the partners. The firm had two partners one of them being the appellant, and tw...
Tag this Judgment!E.M.E. Shanmugham Chettiar and ors. Vs. Rm. an. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad305
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. Plaintiffs and the defendants belong to Nattukottai Chettiar community. The 2nd and the 3rd defendants are the sons of the 1st defendant. On 7-2-1940, the plaintiff's adoptive father K. S. A. K. Raman Chettiar deposited under Ex. A-1, at Koolim in Malayasia S. 2397-53 with the 1st defendant who was then trading under the name and style of Y. M. Y. Firm as a money--lender, and on such deposits the 1st defendant executed Ex. A-1 acknowledging the deposit the deposit and contracting to pay thavanai interest, with three months rest. After the adoptive father's death, on 1-9-1948, the plaintiff wrote Ex. A-5 addressed to the 1st defendant putting on notice of his adoption to Raman Chettiar and his status and right to demand the deposit as above and also apprising the 1st defendant of a legal proceeding between him and his father when he was alive in O.S. 9 of 1942 on the file of Chief Court, Pudukottai, wherein his right to be paid un...
Tag this Judgment!Sakunthala Vs. Rasheedunnissa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad309
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. Respondents 1 to 5, as plaintiffs, filed the suit for declaration that the suit property is wakf property and restraining the appellant by permanent injunction from bringing the property to sale by publication auction or private sale in pursuance of the mortgage executed in his favour. The suit property is a superstructure bearing door No. 19 Neeli Veerasami Street, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras. This superstructure along with two other items of superstructures originally belonged to one Syed Ghulam Murthuza Sahib. Under a deed dated 14-5-1927, the original owner purported to executed a 'wakf-ul-aulad'. The plaintiff contended that since the suit property is a wakf property, the mortgage deed executed by their father was invalid and not binding on them and that the appellant herein could not bring the property to sale. The first defendant contended that the wakf deed executed by Syed Ghulam Murtaza Sahib was not valid in law....
Tag this Judgment!S. Srinivasan by L. Rs. Shanbagammal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR315(Mad)
1. The assessee is a partner in a firm called Anjaneya Motor Transport along with his wife and another stranger. His two minor sons, Murali and Mohan, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership even on the date of its constitution on 17th September, 1951. One of the terms of the partnership deed provided that:'if the firm requires any sum for meeting the expenses for its management and if any of the partners has and is willing to agree to give such amount, he may advance (such amount) as loan. He may receive interest for such sum at the rate of 12 annas per cent. per mensem.'2. Based on the above provision the interest on accumulated profits was credited for the first time in the previous year ending 30th September, 1956. The amounts standing to the credit of the assessee's wife and his two minor sons as on October 1, 1955, on capital and current accounts were as under:Capital accountCurrent accountRs.Rs.Shanbagammal (assessee's wife)75065,662Murali (assessee's minor son)90059,93...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nripendrakumari Bhandari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR158(Mad)
1. The assessee is a partner in the firm of M/s. Premier Credit Corporation, carrying on business as financiers. The firm was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1959, with effect from that date. The assessee's two minor sons, Sunil Kumar and Ashok Kumar, were also admitted to the benefits of the partnership even at the time of its constitution. Clause 4 of the partnership deed provided for contribution of capital of Rs. 1,22,500 by the partners in fixed sums including the two aforesaid minors, who had to contribute capital of Rs. 26,250 each. The partnership deed also provided that such capital shall not carry any interest, but any amount in excess of the capital contributed or any amount of profits or accretion thereof left in the firm, shall be treated as loan to the firm by the respective partners and it shall carry interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent. per annum.2. For the assessment year 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer included in the assessment of the assess...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramaswamy Naidu and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Char ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ133
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of 24 families of the Erumaikara Naicker community instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, to set aside the order of the first defendant viz., the Commissioner, Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments, Madras, who in turn confirmed that of the Deputy Commissioner whereunder the department declared a temple known as 'Dhroupathi Amman Temple ' situate in West Car Street, Dindigul Town as a public temple. The case of the plaintiffs as is seen from the pleadings is that the temple was established about 330 years ago by the families known as Santhakula Sowmiya Narayana Gowraya community or Erumaikara Naicker community and that these families were living in different places, such as, Dindigul, Madurai, Quilon, Palani, Palghat, Nilgiris, Calicut, Cannanore, Mananthavadi, Mercara and Sivaganga. It is admitted that there was no dedication of the temple. But it is contended that at no time the temple o...
Tag this Judgment!Mithuna Industries by Its Partner Vs. the Deputy Chief Controller of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ53
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions is one and the same and it is a partnership firm. One Messrs. Delta Enterprises, Kakinada, a registered merchant-exporter, who was exporting stainless steel goods, applied for a replenishment licence release order under the registered Exporter's Policy for the quarter July-September, 1971 against their exports of stainless steel utensils for an F.O.B. value of Rs. 2,58,500-30. It is necessary at this stage to explain the scheme under which this application was made. In order to offer incentives to exporters, the Government of India promulgated a scheme by way of granting import licences for raw materials for the manufacture of the goods to be exported, at a particular percentage of the value of the export. It is on the basis of this alone, that an application was made by Messrs. Delta Enterprises, Kakinada. It is also necessary to explain the difference between an import licence and a release order. As an incentive, an ...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Chandravadivelu Chettiar Vs. V. Varadappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ401
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. plaintiff in a suit for a mandatory injunction in respect of a construction of the first floor of the defendant's house is the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff pleaded that on the southern wall of the first floor there is a big window with a glass ventilator of about 6', that is 4' window with 3 doors and about a 2ft glass ventilator 4 1/2 ft. breadth opening into the tiled portion of the defendant's premises and four other ventilators of about 2 1/2 ft X 2 ft each on the southern side in the first floor of the said premises opening into the open terrace of the defendant's house. The relief was claimed on the ground that the defendant had, constructed a wall near the southern window with a glass ventilator which obstructed the free flow of air and light through the said window. The defendant denied that there was any obstruction to the facilities of light and air to which the plaintiff was entitled and therefore contended that the plaintiff was ...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad43
1. These appeals arise out of four writ petitions, W. P. Nos. 944 of 1971, 1408 of 1971, 1409 of 1971 and 1411 of 1971. The relief asked for was for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of Collector of Customs dated 18-8-1970 and 12-8-1970, directing the confiscation of 450 watches and levying of penalties, and against the order of the Collector of Customs granting sanction of prosecution against the petitioners under Section 135 of the Customs Act.2. The main contention that was raised before the learned Judge and which found acceptance was that the notice as contemplated under Section 110 of the Customs Act was not in accordance with law and as such further proceedings taken by the Collector under Section 124 of the Customs Act was illegal and without jurisdiction. The short facts that are necessary may be stated. The watches were seized on 1-6-1969. The Collector gave a notice on 4-11-1969 attending the period of notice to 31-5-1970. He actually gave a show cause not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »