Chennai Court April 1975 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.
M.C.S. Rajan and Company Vs. National Nail Industries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad151; (1975)2MLJ490
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. A very short question arises in this appeal. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money due on accounts. The plaintiff was admittedly a sole proprietary concern of which one Padmanabhan was the sole proprietor. He was trading under the name and style of M.C.S. Rajan & Company. He had a Manager by name Narayanan. The defendants owed on account and dealings a sum of Rs. 22,361.83. As per the boots of accounts, the amount due was arrived at and the plaintiff claimed interest at 12 per cent. per annum on the out-standings so struck in the accounts. The plaintiffs gave notice Exhibit A-2 prior to. the suit and the defendants replied that so much amount was not due as the goods were priced at a very high rate not agreed to specifically between the parties. The plaintiff, therefore, on the basis of his accounts came to Court. While instituting the suit, the cause title was correctly given as M.C.S. Rajan and Company and in paragraph 1 thereto, the Company was descri...
Kanwarlal Manoharwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR439(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee who is a pawn-broker obtained an assignment of a decree for Rs. 8,000 for a consideration of Rs. 4,000. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, he purchased some house property from the judgment-debtor for a considerationof Rs. 21,500. In part payment of the consideration for the sale, a sum of Rs. 8,000 due under the decree was set off and the balance of consideration was paid in cash. The Income-tax Officer considered that the assessee had made a profit of Rs. 4,000 in the transaction relating to the assignment of the decree and brought this to tax as business profit. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee contended that he got the assignment only in order to purchase the property which belonged to the judgment-debtor and that any difference in value of the decree and the amount paid by him for getting that decree assigned to him only went in reduction of his investment in the house property and t...
K. Yusuf Sheriff and ors. Vs. K. Akbar Sheriff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ107
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 3 to 8 from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore. He declined to grant stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act of 1940. On 5th March, 1972 a partnership deed was entered into between the parties which provided for settlement, by arbitration, of all disputes arising between the parties in the partnership. The husband of one of the partners was named as the Arbitrator. This relationship, and there is no dispute about it, was known to all the parties concerned at the time the partnership agreement was entered into. Notwithstanding the arbitration clause, the plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit for partition and also dissolution of the partnership. The appellants have no objection to the suit being proceeded with so far as it related to partition, but resist the suit in respect of the relief for dissolution of the partnership on the ground that it should be dealt with in arbitration. The Subordinate Judge declined t...
Kuttan Pillai Vs. Ammamuthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad187; (1976)2MLJ406
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. The short facts are as follows:2. Survey No. 769 of Arumana village consists of 4 acres and 86 cents of garden lands. Originally it belonged to one M. Thanuvan. He created an othi over an extent of 72 cents under Exhibit A-1, dated 30th November, 1932 in favour of the first defendant, Ammamuthu. Thanuvan died in 1949. Thereafter, Thanuvan's children sold 53 cents under Exhibit A-2, dated 2nd February, 1963 in favour of the plaintiff (Kuttan Pillai) with a direction to redeem the othi, Exhibit A-1. Therefore, he issued a notice to the first defendant, Exhibit A-3, dated 30th of June, 1965 seeking to redeem, Exhibit A-1 othi. To this, it was replied under Exhibit A-5 dated 9th of July, 1965 stating that the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem, in view of the petition filed by Thanuvan under the Travancore Debt Relief Act (II of 1116 M.E., 1940)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence, O.S. No. 192 of 1967 was prefer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›