Chennai Court December 1973 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning the South Eastern Railway, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ299
P. S. Kailasam, J.1. The Union of India owning the South Eastern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Calcutta, is the. appellant before us. The respondent filed the suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,268-5-4 being the value of goods entrusted to the Railways for carriage and not delivered, to him. The case of the plaintiff was that on 1st August, 1955, the plaintiff consigned one case containing perfumes, nibs, pencils and other items of stationery of the value of Rs. 3,861-2-0 from Madras to Howrah by passenger train. The consignment was accepted by the Southern Railway to be carried at Railways' risk. The goods arrived at Howrah on or about 12th August, 1955. When the plaintiff went to take delivery of the goods, he found two planks of the wooden case broken. He demanded open delivery which was accordingly given. It was found that the goods mentioned in the schedule to the plaint of the value of Rs. 3,068-5-4 were short. A certificate of...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ139
Natarajan, J.1. The second and the third defendants in O.S. No. 9 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga are the respective appellants in these two appeals and the memorandum of cross-objections has been preferred by the plaintiff therein.2. The suit property, which the plaintiff conceded before the trial Court to be 14,534 sq. ft. in extent and not 16,800 sq. ft. as set out in the plaint, was purchased by the plaintiff under two sale deeds, Exhibits A-9 and A-10. On the plaintiff being approached during September-October, 1959 by the President and the Executive Officer of the Sivaganga Panchayat, the first defendant in the suit, for parting with the site to enable the panchayat to erect its water works thereon and on being promised proper compensation therefor as fixed by the Government, the plaintiff delivered possession of the suit site in May-June, 1960 to the first defendant and the first defendant constructed its water works on the site by December...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohamed Ismail and ors. Vs. M.S. Mohamed Essa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad301
1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. Their suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opening and carrying on a business in city limits similar to that of the plaintiffs under the name and style of 'M. M. Mohammed Saleh' or any other name which is deceptively similar to it. First plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers. They were conducting a registered partnership at No. 1-79 Sembudoss St., G.T. Madras. The first defendant retired from the partnership. Under clause (8) of the partnership deed, the outgoing partner shall not be entitled to the goodwill or to any payment on account of the goodwill and shall not be entitled to open a similar business in the name of 'M. M. Mohammad Saleh' in the City limits. The first defendant left the city and opened a shop at Madurai. Subsequently, he returned to Madras and has opened a similar business in hardware materials at No. 15 Sembudoss St, under the name and style of 'Saleh Machinery stores'. The se...
Tag this Judgment!Thangarajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad32
1. The claimant in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 442 of 1970 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, is the appellant before us. The appellant minor Thangarajan, aged about 10 years at the time of the accident was walking along Suryanarayana Chetty Road on 14-5-1970 about 12 noon. The military lorry UD 40494 belonging to the Defence Department of the Union of India knocked Thangarajan as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 45,000.2. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Defence Department, raised various defences. Firstly it was contended that the accident was not due to the rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and that it was due to the reckless crossing of the road by the petitioner Thangarajan. It was also contended that the respondent, Union of India, is not liable for the tortious act of its servant, namely, the driver of the lorry, committed in the course of the exercise of its sovere...
Tag this Judgment!Thangarajan (Minor) by Father and Next Friend T.V. Adhinarayana Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ288
ORDER1. The claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P: No. 442 of 1970 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, is the appellant before us. The appellant Minor Thangarajan, aged about 10 years.at the time of the accident was walking along Suryanarayana Chetty Road on 14th May, 1970 at about 12 noon. The military lorry UD 40494 belonging to the Defence Department of the Union of India knocked Thangarajan as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 45,000.2. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Defence Department raised various defences. Firstly it was contended that the accident was rot due to the rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and that it was due to the reckless crossing of the road by the petitioner Thangarajan. It was also contended that the respondent, Union of India is not liable for the tortious act of its servant, namely, the driver of the lorry, committed in the course of the exercise of its ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Velmurugayya Pillai and ors. Vs. K.V. Lakshmana Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ295
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Late Velayutharm Pillai had three sons, T.V. Velmurugiah Pillai, the first defendant, K.V. Lakshmanaperumal, the plaintiff, and Ramasubramaniam, the last two being; admittedly twins, Velayutham Pillai died in the year 1930 leaving behind him his. wife Gomathiammal and daughter Shan-mughathammal besides his three sons of whom two were minors. After his death, under the original of Exhibit A-1, dated 24th December, 1942 a partition was effected as between the defendant, the plaintiff and the said Ramasubramaniam,, the latter two as minors being represented by their mother and natural guardian Gomathiammal. We may at once record that on the date when Velayutham died in 1930, Gomathiammal, as widow, had only a right of maintenance from the joint family properties. Under the partition deed Exhibit A-l certain properties were earmarked in lieu of maintenance of their mother Gomathiammal and it was also agreed that after the death of Gomathiammal, one of the propertie...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: [1976]105ITR289(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee company transferred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 one of its buildings valued at Rs. 38,661 to an Indian company, M/s. Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products Limited, which was a fully owned subsidiary company of the assessee. On this building the assessee had been given initial depreciation in the sum of Rs. 6,098. The Income-tax Officer brought to charge this sum of Rs. 6,098 on the ground that 'this initial depreciation forms profit in the sale of assets to the company'. The Income-tax Officer presumably proceeded to include this amount to a charge under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed deletion of this amount in the view that Section 47(iv) of the Act is applicable, the transfer being to a new Indiancompany which is a fully owned subsidiary company of the assessee. The Tribunal after holding that Section 47(iv) is applicable to the case, c...
Tag this Judgment!Sivanandam Vs. Ramabadra Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ212
S. Maharajan, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: On the 12th September, 1935 one Ramabadra Reddiar obtained a decree against Govindaraju Nadar (D-1) Doraiswami Nadar (D-2) and minor Vasudeva Nadar (D-3) whereby defendants 1 and 2 were directed to pay personally, and all the defendants to pay, out of the family properties, a sum of Rs. 2,856 with interest on Rs. 2,100 at 12% per annum from 16th April, 1934 from the date of the plaint upto the date of the decree. The decree further ordered the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 425 as costs to the plaintiff with interest 0.1 the aggregate sum at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree upto the date of realisation. Subsequently Ramabadra Reddiar transferred part of the decree in favour of ore Annamalai Mudaliar. Sivanandam who is one of the sons of Govindaraju Nadar (D-1) and who was not a party to the suit in O. S. No. 515 of 1934, filed in March, 1961 a petition under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vanamamalai Mutt, Represented by Its Head His Holiness the Jeer Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ323
K. Veeraswami, C. J.1. On the ground of excessive delegation, Section 119 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is attacked. There are two taxes designated as Agricultural Development Tax and Village Development Tax, with which we are concerned. Both the taxes have been raised for the specific purpose of laying roads in the village. Section 119 authorises a village Panchayat to levy such taxes. Sub-section (3) says that, subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as the case may be, the Panchayat may levy a tax on agricultural land for a specific purpose. This power is, of course, subject to rules to be made and with the sanction of the Inspector. While granting such sanction, the Inspector may also prescribe restrictions and conditions. By reason of the rule-making power, rules have been made by G.O. Ms. No. 184, L.A. dated 1st January, 1962. Rule 1 (b) mentions the specific purposes for which the taxes can be levied. One of them is the construction of a road or bridge or culv...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late H.R. Goosey (by K.S. Naga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1973
Reported in: [1974]97ITR193(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. A certain H.R. Goosey died on February 2, 1963. He was a domicile of the United Kingdom. He owned 750 ordinary shares in Best and Company (Private) Ltd., Madras, of the face value of Rs. 100 each and 400 ordinary shares in Best & Company (Private) Ltd., Pondicherry, of the face value of Rs. 50 each. The respondent in his capacity as the sole executor under the will of the deceased and as accountable person filed a statement of account under the Estate Duty Act. During the assessment proceedings the accountable person claimed exemption from assessment in respect of the 400 shares of Best & Company (Private) Ltd., Pondicherry, on the ground that the deceased having died prior to April 1, 1963, on which date the Estate Duty Act was extended to Pondicherry, no estate duty was leviable on the shares held by him in Pondicherry prior to such extension. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected this claim holding that Pondicherry became part of the Indian territory with ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »