Court : Chennai
Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.557; (1916)30MLJ423
Napier, J.1. This an appeal from an appellate decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dismissing a suit brought by five Roman Catholic Vellalas as representatives of the Pillais and Mudalis of Vaddakankulam against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trichinopoly, the Parish Priest of Vaddankankulam and certain Shanan Roman Catholics the last being sued as representatives of the Nadars, asking for certain reliefs in connection with the Holy Family Church situate in the above village. The reliefs may be grouped as follows:1. A mandatory injunction to re-erect walls between what are called the two Churches in the above Church, the cause of action being the obstructing of the plaintiffs' right, the obtaining an order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the demolition of the walls, all in November 1910.2. A declaration that the ownership of the alleged Southern Church is vested only in the so-called high caste Christians of the plaintiffs' vagaira.3. A declaration of the right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ390
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff's suit was for specific performance of a contract, Exhibit P-2, dated 27th April, 1942, for sale of certain piece of land belonging to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. This agreement though it was intended to be executed by both the defendants, was, in fact, signed only by the first defendant. The second defendant is alleged to have later entered into another agreement with the plaintiff, Exhibit P-I, dated 25th May, 1942, but the finding of the lower courts is that this is not a document which could be enforced as it has not been proved to be genuine. On the 6th August, 1942, defendants 1 and 2 sold the same property to the third defendant under Exhibit D-5 and the present suit for specific performance of the contract, Exhibit P-2, was filed, making the purchaser under Exhibit D-5 also a party.2. The trial court found that the entire document, Exhibit P-2, is unenforceable because, ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad83; [1963]33CompCas932(Mad)
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Second appeal raises a question of some importance and difficulty. The appellants who are closely related, the first four among them being members of one family and the fifth, the husband of the fourth appellant, held severally and jointly 150 preference shares in the Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., the respondent herein, a public limited company having a share capital of Rs. one crore divided into (a) 20000 six per cent income-tax free ............ cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100 each, but with no further rights in the participation of the profits of the company, and (b) 8,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each'. The company carries on business in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and their by-products. Its year of accounting is the financial year. For the years 1950-51 to 1956-57, the profits made by the company stood wiped out in the accounts by reason of setting them off against the depreciation allowable under the Indian I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1919)37MLJ663
Abdur Rahim, C.J.1. This is a case stated by the Board of Revenue, under Section 51 of the Income-tax Act, VII of 1918, in which the question involved is whether the assessee, a Nattukottai Chetti, who is the proprietor of a money-lending business carried on on his behalf by his agents in various places including Saigon, Sodac and Khando situated in French Cochin China, is liable to be taxed, under the provisions of this Act, in respect of the income of the business though not received in British India.2. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the Crown has based his contention on two grounds : firstly, that the income in question accrued or arose to the assessee in British India inasmuch as he was entitled to call upon his agents to pay the income to him in British India, and, secondly, that, upon the case stated by the Board, the business the income of which is sought to be taxed must be held to have been carried on in British India and, therefore, income of that business is taxab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1920)38MLJ135
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Both the junior members of the bar who appeared in the case argued it very ably. The facts are not in dispute. A Policy was effected on the life of one Nagammal on the 29th May 1906. The premia were payable monthly. The assured made 61 payments, and then discontinued the payment. She died on the 6th April 1914 and the present suit was instituted on the 11th April 1917. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, In appeal the Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the amount of the premia paid by the deceased. I agree with the conclusion of the lower appellate Court though not for the reasons given by it.2. When the insurance was effected the rule of the Company stood thus: (See Exhibit E Clauses (b) and (c): 'The Policy-holders mentioned above who have been making payments duly in that manner will be paid interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per annum. It is only after the death of the Policy-holder that the life assurance amount will be determined. (c) If the present Policy-h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 55Ind.Cas.660
Seshagiri Aiyar, J.1. Both the junior members of the Bar who appeared in this case argued it very ably. The fasts are not in dispute. A policy was effected on the life of one Nagammal on the 29th of May 1906. The premia were payable monthly. The assured made 61 payments and then discontinued the payment. She died on the 6th of April 1914 and the present suit was instituted on the 11th of April 1917. The District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the amount of the premia paid by the deceased. I agree with the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court, though not for the reasons given by it. When the insurance was effected the rule of the company stood thus [see Exhibit E, Clauses (b) and (c)]. 'The policy-holders mentioned above who have been making payments duly in that manner, will be paid interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per annum. It is only after the death of the policy holder that the life assurance amount will be determined. (c) If the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: W.P.No.5685 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to process only those tenders submitted pursuant to tender Specification No.M-21/2014-15, that does contain the type test certificates or the values in Schedule B, arrived at on the basis of the specifications in Schedule I of the tender.) Common Order: A policy decision was taken by the official respondents to procure Energy Efficient Distribution Transformers as per the guidelines of Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India in the month of August, 2008. Tenders were called in which bids of 40 tenderers were opened. After finalisation of tenders, LOAs were issued to number of firms. Out of them, purchase orders have been issued to 20 firms. Thereafter, the aforesaid firms, who bagged the orders, started working towards compliance of the purchase orders. One firm has already sold the transformers and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad35
1. The petitioner is an advocate of this Court with a standing of eight years at the Bar. As a member of the profession, he applies under Art, 226 of the Constitution for rule forbidding the respondent from conducting the election to the Bar Council of Madras, which was originally fixed to be held on 5-11-1965 but stayed by this court. The petitioner contends that Rule 7(2) of the Election Rules framed by the Madras Bar Council on 20-4-1963 and approved by the Bar Council of India on 24/25-8-1963 is invalid in so far as it forbids any announcement or canvassing as provided for by the Explanation to the rule. The ground of invalidity, it is said, is that the Explanation is unreasonable. The petition is opposed not only of the ground that the Explanation is in keeping with the ethics and standards of the noble profession but also on the ground that the alleged invalidity of the Explanation in is more properly agitated by means of an election petition under R. 35 of the Election Rules.(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ107
P. Jyothimani, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu against the common order of the learned Judge dated 9.3.2007 made in W.P.Nos.1991 of 1996, 11133 of 1998, 1932 of 2003 and 4533 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has struck down a proviso to Explanation II(5) to Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Welfare Fund Act').2. The first respondent in W.A. No. 823/2007, respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 824/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 826/2007, respondent in W.A. No. 829/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 830/2007, first respondent in W.A. No. 831/2007 and respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 832/2007 (for brevity, 'the contesting respondents'), who are the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after having retired from Government and other services, have challenged the above said proviso by which the benefit of payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs to a member of the Advocates Welfare ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1999Mad396; (1998)IIIMLJ172
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 141 of 1996, aggrieved by the order dated 29-4-1997 passed by the learned single Judge in O. A. Nos. 163 and 164 of 1996 in the said suit. In this judgment, we will refer to the parties as they are described in the suit for convenience. 2. The plaintiff, Caesar Park Hotels and Resorts Inc., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., hereinafter referred to as CPHR, filed the said suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Westinn Hospitality Services Limited, Madras, hereinafter referred to as 'WHSL', from passing-off its business as that of 'CPHR'by using the name 'Westinn' as part of its corporate name, besides claiming damages and costs. 3. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed O. A. No.163 of 1996 seeking for the grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from passing-off its business by using the expression 'Westinn' or any other expression aurally, phonetically, or otherwise...
Tag this Judgment!