Chennai Court November 1974 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.
T.R. Krishnamoorthy and ors. Vs. T.S. Krishnamachary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ204
S. Maharajan, J.1. The suit out of which these two appeals arise was instituted in forma pauperis by three plaintiffs, (1) for a declaration that they are co-trustees of the suit trust along with the fifth defendant (2) for a direction to the defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to hand over possession of the trust properties, accounts and records to the plaintiff and the fifth defendant, (3) for a direction to the defendants 1 to 4 to render a true and correct account of the income and expenses of the trust, both for the period prior to the death of Ramakrishna Iyer, father of defendants 1 to 3 and for the period subsequent to his death, (4) for a decree against defendants 1 to 4 to pay the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant all the amounts that may be found due on accounts, (5) for a direction to the sixth defendant to pay the plaintiffs and the fifth defendant damages for wrongful possession of the plaint item 1 at Rs. 500 - per mensem from the date of plaint upto the date of delivery of possess...
Reverend Br. A. Thomas S.H.J. General Manager of the Society of the Br ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ353
ORDER1. When the order of the Government requires that Higher Grade Teachers should be appointed to the particular posts in question, and when the petitioner appointed a Secondary Grade Teacher and when such appointment was not approved by the Inspecting Officers, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that the right of a religious minority to establish and maintain its own educational institution guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution of India cannot be interfered with by such direction of the Government to appoint only Higher Grade Teachers in such vacancies and they cannot disapprove of the action of the petitioner when he had appointed a Secondary Grade Teacher who has a better qualification than Higher Grade Teachers. The Government Orders produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader show that this decision was taken by the Government in order to see that Higher Grade Teachers are not unemployed and the Secondary...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R. Seetharama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR151(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is the proprietor of a hotel. He started his life as an employee in another hotel in or about 1928, He set up his own business in 1944. As he had not maintained proper accounts his income for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1953-54 were assessed on an estimate basis. During the assessment proceedings for 1958-59, a wealth statement was obtained from the assessee. It came to light that the asses-see purchased in March, 1954, in a court auction sale the property bearing No. 5, Sunkuvar Street, Triplicane, in the name of his wife for Rs. 30,000 in execution of a decree in his favour for Rs. 53,417 in C.S. No. 353/52. The suit was filed by him against the legal representative of his paternal uncle, one S. V. Rao, who was the managing director of Premier Bank Ltd., for the recovery of the amount due to the assessee under a pronote dated June 23, 1961, for Rs. 50,000 executed by his late uncle. The papers also disclosed that there were six chit transactions with...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: [1975]100ITR240(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company operating a fleet of buses and lorries under permits granted by the road transport authorities of the Government of Tamil Nadu. In the year ending March 31, 1962, the company had subscribed to certain Government bonds at the instance of the road transport authorities. Within a short time of its purchase, these bonds were sold and there was a loss of Rs. 13,820. For the previous year ending March 31, 1962, the company returned an income of Rs. 12,16,625 and in arriving at this income it claimed the above sum of Rs. 13,820 as loss incidental to its business. It was contended before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who did the assessment in this case, that the assessee was forced to purchase these bonds by the Regional Transport Authorities, that the assessee had borrowed large sums of money for the purpose of its business at very high rates of interest and that in order to make the money available for its business the assess...
Mrs. Ratnakumari Kumbhat Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: [1975]101ITR572(Mad)
1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for decision I 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in the view it took that the abatement of debt to the extent of the interest amount of Rs. 1,16,205 was in accordance with the provisions of Section 46(1) read with Section 16(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953?'2. One B. M. Kumbhat died on June 25, 1962. He had on March 31, 1955, gifted Rs. 50,000 to each of his three minor sons, Sumant Kumar, Rajkumar and Sureshkumar. Mrs. Ratnakumari Kumbhat, the mother and guardian of the minors, accepted the gifts on behalf of the minors by a letter dated March 31, 1955. By the same letter of acceptance, she also requested the deceased to keep the money with him as deposit bearing interest at 7 1/2 per cent. In the books of account of the deceased his capitalaccount was debited with a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and corr...
A.M. Thiruvengadam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1468
ORDERPaul, J.1. These two petitions are under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for expunging the following remarks which had been made by the learned Special Judge and District Magistrate of North Arcot at Vellore in Special Case Nos. 2 and 3 of 1972:Before parting with the Judgment the following observations are made. Combination of misappropriation and corruption the subject-matters of this case and the other case disposed of today is horrible in a Government servant in the cadre of a Tahsildar which is a pivotal post at the Taluk level as the area of his activities extends to almost all the branches of citizen's life in a welfare State. The accused has been acquitted giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt that has arisen regarding the prosecution version in the appreciation of evidence though there is well-founded suspicion to indicate that he rendered bad services to the Government by betraying the confidence reposed by it in him in appointing him as Tahsildar, a responsi...
State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Thanjavur Vs. T.R. Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ364
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram is the appellant herein. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. The Government of India promulgated an order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 7th January, 1964 called the Madras Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). Clause 3 of this Order provided that every licensed dealer and every licensed miller shall sell to the Purchase Officer at the controlled price at the commencement of the Order, if he is functioning in the district of Thanjavur, twenty per cent of the quantity of rice equivalent of twenty per cent of the quantity of paddy held in stock by him at such commencement. Since we are concerned only with a licensed dealer or licensed miller in the district of Thanjavur, it is not necessary to refer to the other sub-clauses of this clause. 'Controlled price' has been defined in Clause 2 (a) of...
The Pudukottah Textiles Limited, a Public Limited Company, Incorporate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ356
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendants, who failed in the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 4362 of 1967, are the appellants The first defendant is Pudukottah Textiles Limited, which was represented for all purposes in this action as -well as in the correspondence by its Director-in-charge, L. Narayana Chettiar, who is the second defendant in the suit. In June 1965, the defendants caused a publication to be made in regard to the -sale of certain textile machineries belonging to them. The plaintiff in response to the said advertisement, offered, after inspection, to purchase the said machineries for a sum and consideration of Rs. 2,50,000 but made the offer subject to the following conditions.1. The licence from the Textile Commissioner should be got by the defendants and endorsed in favour of the plaintiff.2. The time for taking delivery of the machinery and payment of a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 after adjusting the sum of Rs. 25,000 paid as advance by the plaintiff should be on or before ...
Pazhancottai Match Factory a Firm Carrying on Business in Partnership ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ21
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 24 of 1965 on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. In view of the narrow compass in which the appeal was argued, before me, it is not necessary to refer to the controversy between the parties very elaborately. The appellant is a firm registered under the Partnership Act, manufacturing and selling safety matches under the name, label and trade mark of Delux Safety Matches. The appellant instituted the suit praying : (i) for an injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from passing off or attempting to pass off and from enabling others to pass off safety matches, not of the plaintiff's (appellant's)manufacture, as the goods of the appellant by using the name either 'Delux' or 'Deluxe' and the trade mark similar to the one used by the appellant or by using packages of similar make and appearance as those used by the appellant for their goods; (ii) directing the defendants to deliver to the ...
Arumugha Gounder Vs. Ardhanari Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad231
1. This reference raises an interesting question as to whether a tenant let into possession of land and incidental immovable property by a Receiver appointed by Court pending a suit would be entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, The suit was brought by the tenant for an injunction, out of which the second appeal arises. The lease in his favour was in 1957 and it was to enure after renewal every year upto November 15. 1961. In that vear, the Receiver was discharged, but the tenant continued to hold over and cultivate the land. When the true owner sought possession, the plaintiff brought the suit for a preventive injunction from disturbance. His ground was that he having been let into possession by the Receiver as a tenant, after expiry of the term of the lease he continued to be in possession and cultivated the land, and that as such he would be a cultivating tenant by operation of law and entitled to protection from dispossession under the Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »