Chennai Court November 1973 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. Munuswamy Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ62
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 21st August, 1952 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for conveyance of certain items of the suit properties. The plaintiffs wanted to purchase one item of property from one Ramaswami. They were unable to raise funds. They approached the defendant and the defendant told the plaintiffs that because of the Debt Relief Act, he would not be in a position to advance money to the plaintiffs at a high rate of interest, but if the plaintiffs agreed, he would advance money on condition that the plaintiffs should convey not only the property that was proposed to be purchased but also the property they owned to the defendant and after such conveyance, the defendant would agree to transfer the property back to the plaintiffs on their paying the entire money with interest stipulated. Accordingly, sale deeds were ...
Chickanna Silk House and anr. Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR422(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is a partnership firm (SIC) ling in handloom clothes and art silk yarn at Elampallai in Salem (SIC) trict. Petitioner No. 2 is its managing partner. This business was start-(SIC) by this firm (sic) filed the income-tax return before P.W. 1 for the years (SIC) mencing from November 10, 1961, giving ' August to August' as the (SIC) of accounting for them. P.W. 1, during the scrutiny, found in (SIC) dbit P-7, the day book for the year ending August, 1963, an entry (SIC) iting to the year 1965. This kindled his suspicion. He felt that (SIC) ibit P-7 was written in the year 1965. Then he wrote to the (SIC) nmercial Tax Officers and got from them particulars about the various (SIC) ks produced by the petitioners before them. We are now concerned, in(SIC) case with the books for the periods from January 10, 1961, to August 28,(SIC) 2 and August 28, 1962, to August, 1963. Exhibit P-49 is the day book (SIC) exhibit P-50 is the ledger for the fir...
In Re: Thommeni Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1116
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Thommeni Nadar and 24 others were B party before the learned trial Magistrate and Pandy and 21 others were A party. They were convicted of an offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The principal argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the ingredient of Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, 'public place' has not been proved by the prosecution in the light of the contents of Ex. D-3 relied on by the B party. The learned Additional District Judge has elaborately discussed the entire evidence adduced on the question, whether the pathway was a public pathway or not, and arrived at the finding that the A party (who were plaintiffs in the civil suit) could have no right in the pathway as an easement of necessity; nor could they have any right over the said portion even on the basis of user of the pathway by them, on some occasions. The learned Judge further found that the portion in question was a private pathway and not a ...
M.S.M. Ratnaswami Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1973
Reported in: [1975]100ITR669(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee with his wife and an unmarried daughter and four minor sons by name, Thilakaraj, Rajasekhara, Jayaprakash and Natesan, formed a joint Hindu family. He was carrying on business at Kovilpatti under the name and style of Meenakshi Match Factory. He had also leased out certain factory buildings to a partnership firm called Everest Match Factory on an annual rent of Rs. 6,000. The assessee's capital in the books of Meenakshi Match Factory as on September 1, 1955, was Rs. 2,48,410. The assessee also owned other immovable properties valued at Rs. 76,000. For the assessment year 1956-57, he was assessed on an income of Rs. 74,753 in respect of the business run in the name of Meenakshi Match Factory. On February 5, 1956, the assessee executed two settlement deeds in favour of his minor children. By one of the deeds the match factory buildings leased out to Everest Match Factory were settled on Jayaprakash and Natesan. These minors leased the premises to the same par...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Somasundaram Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR365(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1957-58, the account year ' being the calendar year ending December 31, 1956, the assessee submitted a return and claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,98,993. The assessee was keeping its accounts on mercantile system. In the accounts for the calendar year 1956, the assessee made a provision for bonus payment of Rs. 1,50,000 for the year 1956 on the basis of 3 3/4 months' wages. The bonus was actually paid after the close of the accounting year 1956, the actual payment being of the order of Rs. 1,98,993 equivalent to five months' wages. The assessee claimed deduction also in regard to the difference of Rs. 48,993 not provided in the accounts of 1956 but paid for 1956 in later periods representing additional bonus liability equivalent to 11/4 months' wages, following the advice of the Southern India Mill Owners' Association of which it was a member. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the entire claim ...
T. Velappan Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1973
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT330(Mad)
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a partner of M/s. Bharat Refiners and Oil Mills carrying on business at Erode in the manufacture and sale of ground-nut oil and refined oil and he prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the notice of demand dated 7-6-1971, demanding payment of rupees 26,768.75 from the petitioner for the periods 1967-68 to August 1970 under the provisions of the Produce Cess Act 15 of 1966.2. The Central Act 15 of 1966 was enacted to provide for the imposition of cess on certain produce for the improvement and development of the methods of cultivation and marketing of such produce and for matters connected therewith. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 provides for the levy and collection, as a cess, a duty of customs at such rate not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the First Schedule on every produce specified in column 2 of that Schedule. Sub-section (2) of that section provides for levy and collec...
The Cosmopolitan Club Vs. the District Employment Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1973
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ235Mad
Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Srinivasan, J,, dismissing the appellant's writ petition No. 459 of 1963. The District Employment Officer, Madras, who is the respondent herein, sent a communication on 23-3-1963 calling upon the appellant to furnish particulars of the number of persons employed by the appellant, treating the appeallant as an establishment within the meaning of the employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959. The appellant called into question the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the proceedings dated 23-3-1963. The appellant is the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras. That club is intended to serve its members only, and no person other than a member of the said club is entitled to participate in the amenities provided by that club. The main objects of the club are (a) to provide accommodation for its members, (b) to promote social intercourse among its members, and (c) to provide physical and intellectual recreation fo...
C. Narayanan Vs. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad281
1. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. (Subordinate Judge), Cuddalore in a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. On 23-9-1967 he was travelling in lorry MSV 8251, belonging to the first respondent, which was proceeding to Madurai. At about 4 a.m. on 24-9-1967, when the lorry was proceeding near Vandipalayam on the Grand Trunk Road, it hit against a stationary lorry parked on the left side of the road, resulting in grievous injury to the eyes of the appellant and injury to his head resulting in fracture of the skull. The appellant was treated in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, and later in the Stanley Hospital, Madras. He claimed that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,000 for treatment and Rs. 35,000 by way of compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income and loss of employment and for medical expenses, past and future.2. The respondents denied liability on the ground that the appellant had no right to travel...
Periaswami Vs. Rangaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ69
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner was elected as the President of the Pudupalayam Village Panchayat in the elections held on 28th July, 1970, respondents 1 and 2 herein having been defeated. The first respondent herein preferred an election petition namely, O.P. No. 36 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ariyalur to set aside the election of the petitioner. The Election Tribunal by an order dated 16th June, 1972, set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the first respondent herein as the duly elected President. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition namely W.P. No. 1588 of 1972 (Periaswamy v. Rangaswamy and 2 others) on the file of this Court praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the same. The said writ petition was allowed on 1st August, 1972 and the Original Petition No. 36 of 1970 itself was remanded for fresh disposal. The said O.P. was numbered as OP. No. 46 of 1972 before the Principal District Munsif,...
T. Balakrishna Mehta Vs. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ380
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The appellant herein is the respondent in I.A. No. 5752 of 1966 in O.S. No. 1381 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras. In a suit for ejectment instituted by the : appellant in O.S. No. 1381 of 1966, the tenant viz., the respondent herein set up the plea that he was entitled to the benefits conferred by the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955 XIX of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the Act and filed I.A. No. 5752 of 1966 for the appointment of a Commissioner to determine the market; value of the suit land. Overruling the objection of the appellant that the respondent was not entitled to the benefits of the Act, the learned 5th Assistant Judge has ordered the appointment of a Commissioner and hence this appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff.2. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. N. Sivamani, learned Counsel for the appellant, a concise history of the case has got to be made. The suit is In respect ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›