Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian railway companies act 1895 Court: chennai Page 2 of about 6,379 results (0.219 seconds)

Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Madras and Southern Maharashtra ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1940]8ITR280(Mad)

..... only point taken on behalf of the company. as the correctness of the decision in the madras and southern mahratta railway company limited v. commissioners of inland revenue is not challenged, i fail to see any basis for ..... ., in the madras and southern mahratta railway company limited v. commissioners of inland revenue mr. grant has contended on behalf of the company that the payment of interest on the pound 5,000,000 in london cannot be regarded as profits accruing or arising in british india within the meaning of section 4 of the indian income-tax act, 1922. in fact this is the .....

Mulji Dhanji Seit and anr. Vs. the Southern Mahratta Railway Company, ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1904)14MLJ396

..... form approved by the governor-general in council in accordance with section 72 of the indian railway's act, 1890 and has been frequently before the courts in this country. see for example the cases reported in moheswar das v. carter i.l.r. 10 c. 210 tippamma v. southern mahratta railway company i.l.r. 17 b. 417 balaram hun chand v. s.m ..... , viz., that the goods which reached calicut and were delivered to abdul karim were their goods. they failed to do this. section 76 of the indian railways act, no doubt, provides that in a suit against a railway adminis-tration for loss of goods, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to prove how the loss was caused. but the plaintiff's case ..... . railway company i.l.r. 19 b. 159 east india company v. bunyal ali i.l.r. 18 .....

G.P. Venkataraman and Co., by Its Partner, Venkataswami Vs. Eastern Ra ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1958)1MLJ175

..... that particular trader would not take delivery unless the railway company remitted the charges for wharfage. the railway company declined to remit the charges for wharfage. the goods were not taken delivery of. the company, acting in exercise of the power conferred on it by section 55(2) ,of the indian railways act sold the goods by public auction. the plaintiff ..... whether the sale held without such intimation or notice to the owner or the consignee is a sale which is authorised by the indian railways act.7. section 56 of the indian railways act and condition no. 10 of the conditions printed on the forwarding note--the condition is extracted at page 13 of the subordinate judge ..... the destination ; that since the goods were perishing, they had to be disposed of in public auction held in accordance with section 56 of the indian railways act after due and proper notifications prior to the auction, that accordingly the goods were sold and that the plaintiff had no cause of action. the defendants .....

In Re: Chitrala Bheemanna and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1919)37MLJ656

..... by the lower court that the station master did depute the signaller to collect tickets. rule 244 of the general rules made by the railway board acting under the indian railway board act (no. iv of 1905) says ' the station master shall be responsible for the efficient discharge of the duties devolving upon the several ..... to that person when he demands a pass or ticket is not obstruction to a railway servant in the discharge of his duty. we are unable to accept this argument. the appointment by the 'railway administration' or railway company of a particular person to do a particular duty is through agents empowered by rules ..... as 'any person employed by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway', ' railway administration ' means (in this particular case) ' the railway company'. (see section 3 clause 6) 'railway company' means 'owners or lessees of a railway or parties to an agreement for working a railway ' (clause 5).5. thus a 'railway servant' in section 121 is .....

Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. V. V. R. N. M. Subbiah Chettiar ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1947]15ITR502(Mad)

..... also followed the above principles in determining the residence in the case of companies and firms for purposes of section 4 (2) of that act : see commissioner of income-tax, madras v ..... the central management and control of a company may be divided, and it may keep house and do business in more than one place; and if so, it may have more than one residence' : seaweeds central railway company ltd. v. thompson.as residence was not defined in the indian income-tax act, 1922, the courts in this country ..... business including the branches outside british india, was exercised both from ramachandrapuram and madras, it may very well be that the principle of the swedish central railway companys case would apply and that the central management of the business as a whole might be apply and that the central management of the business as a .....

P.P. Ramabhadran, Liquidator Vs. T.S. Manickkam and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1941Mad565; (1941)1MLJ369

..... .a. 1 : i.l.r. 54 all. 827 : 63 m.l.j. 859, an appeal from the allahabad high court, said:on the winding up, section 156 of the indian companies act came into play. his liability under that section in respect of the shares was absolute and flowed from the fact of his being on the register in respect 6f those ..... as nineteen of the persons on the list did not comply with the calls made upon them, he applied to this court for an order under section 216 of the indian companies act. of the nineteen respondents, respondents 1 to sand the father of the nineteenth respondent signed the memorandum of association in respect of the shares subscribed for by them, but ..... him for what is due, in which case the court can enforce the call without requiring the liquidator to institute a suit.3. section 156 (1) of the indian companies act says:in the event of a company being wound up, every present and past member shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be liable to contribute to the assets of the .....

V.Srinivasan Vs. Secretary to Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution C ...

Court : Chennai

..... of the provisions of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 also, only to a few categories of employees of the newly formed companies, they would have included in section 169, along with section 21 of the ipc, the provisions of section 2(c) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 also. the very fact that section ..... for the electricity act, 2003 makes it clear that such overriding effect, would be available only in respect of matters, ..... section 173 simply states that nothing contained in the electricity act, 2003 or any rule or regulation made thereunder shall have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any other provisions of the consumer protection act, 1986 or the atomic energy act, 1962 or the railways act, 1989. similarly, section 174, which gives overriding effect .....

The Governor-general in Council, Owning the Madras and Southern Mahrat ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad438

..... act. the plaintiff's suit was for recovery of the price of certain goods, namely, bales of cotton cloth which had been lost by the defendants who are common carriers during the course of the transit of the articles from rajapalayam to guntur. it is common ground that the goods in question were handed over to the south indian railway company ..... learned judges have held that the burden of proving, in a suit governed by article 30, limitation act, the time when the goods entrusted to the railway company ware lost is on the company. waller j. has also held in south indian railway co. v. narayana iyer, : (1924)46mlj302 that the article of limitation applicable to a suit by ..... in the argument that misconduct or wilful negligence on the part of the railway company has not been proved.5. the last argument of the learned counsel is based upon an interpretation of section 75 as well as the second schedule of the indian railways act. according to section 75, when any articles mentioned in the second .....

Sesham Patter and anr. Vs. L.S. Moss

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1894)ILR17Mad445

muttusami ayyar, j.1. under section 72 of the indian railways act, the responsibility of the railway company for loss of goods delivered to be carried by the railway is, subject to the provisions of that act, that of a bailee under sections 151, 152 and 1611 [1]of the indian contract act. under section 76[2] of the former enactment, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove ..... how the loss was caused. act iii of 1865, sections .....

Sajjan Bank (Private) Ltd., Alandur Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1961Mad8; [1960]30CompCas146(Mad)

..... done; to the: latter no valid objection can be made'.in the present case, i have already pointed out that the banking law has been comprehensively laid down in the indian banking companies act, 1949. the question then is only to administer the law. a power to carry out its provisions would be necessary having regard to the technical nature of the subject ..... joint stock banks were governed in respect of their incorporation, organisation and management by the indian companies act of 1913, which was common to banking as well as non-banking companies. in 1936, certain new provisions were introduced in the indian companies act of 1913, in regard to the banking companies. in 1949, the banking companies act was passed to consolidate i and amend the law relating to the banking .....