Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad135
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an application for ad-interim injunction filed in C. S. No. 322 of 1954.2. The facts are: The Plaintiff v. Narasimhachariar is a retired Assistant Secretary of the Government of Madras. The Defendant is a well known credit institution of this City with many branches viz. the Egmore Benefit Society, 3rd Branch Limited. The Society is run On the principles of a Nidhi or Permanent Fund viz. takes deposits and lends out moneys on first mortgages, jwellery etc. In fact but for such credit institutions the industrial and commercial life of this city will not be able to progress.The plaintiff executed a mortgage in respect of his houses No. 33 Gengu Reddi Road & No. 64 Egmore High Road, in favour of the defendant Society for Rs. 32.000/- payable With interest at 71/2 per cent per annum. This amount was borrowed to pay off a prior mortgage of 1947 executed in favour of one Thaiyanayagi Ammal. This loan was a special loan under the bye-laws of this Society repayable with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC504; [1955]2SCR303
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution impugning the validity of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act No. VI of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The history of this legislation may be briefly stated. On 20-8-1949 the Government of India appointed a Committee presided over by Sri C. S. Venkatachar to examine and report on the jagirdari and land tenures in Rajputana and Madhya Bharat, the object avowedly being to effect land reforms so as to establish direct relationship between the State and the tillers of the soil and to eliminate all intermediaries between them. By its report dated 18-12-1949 the Committee recommended inter alia the resumption of jagirs and payment of rehabilitation grants in certain cases. (Vide report, page 62). The question of legislation on the subject was taken up by the Government of Rajasthan in 1951, and eventually a Bill called the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Bill was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Secretary of Agriculture v. United States - 350 U.S. 162 (1956) U.S. Supreme Court Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 350 U.S. 162 (1956) Secretary of Agriculture v. United States Argued October 12, 1955 Decided January 9, 1956 * 350 U.S. 162 APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH Syllabus The Interstate Commerce Commission issued an order approving tariff regulations providing that railroads will be responsible for claims for physical damage to shell eggs carried by them only to the extent that such damage is in excess of specified percentages or "tolerances." The validity of the regulations was challenged on the ground that they violated 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, which provides that any carrier subject to the Act receiving property for interstate transportation "shall be liable . . . for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it" and forbids any limitation of, or exemption from, such liability. The Comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC346; 22(1956)CLT251(SC); [1956]1SCR72
Das, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed on the 28th September, 1953, by a Bench of the Orissa High Court in an Original Suit which was filed on the 24th November, 1952, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack and was on the 17th January, 1953, transferred to the High Court and marked as Original Suit No. 1 of 1953. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant claiming as the Raja and owner of the Rajgee, known as the Kanika Raj, against the State of Orissa, praying for a declaration that the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Abolition Act') was, in its application to the Rajgee of Kanika, invalid, unconstitutional and ultra vires the State Legislature and for an injunction restraining the State of Orissa from taking any action under the said Act. The suit was instituted evidently under an apprehension that the State of Orissa might issue a notification under section 3(1) of the Abolition Act declaring that the Rajgee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC319
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Hyderabad dated 12-8-1952, on leave granted by that Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution on 8-10-1952. These proceedings arise out of a dispute between the late Raja Durga Reddy's widow, Rani Lakshmayamma, and his daughter Rani Shankaramma, which commenced in or about the year 1930 and has been pending for over 25 years.Raja Durga Reddy died on 2-4-1900, possessed of properties including a Jagir Samashtanam, Papannapet. He left behind him surviving, his widow, Rani Lakshmayamma (the present 2nd appellant before us) then aged about 16 years and a daughter, Rani Shankaramma (the 1st respondent before us) then aged about one year. On Raja Durga Reddy's death, management of his entire estate was taken over by the Court; of Wards under orders of the Government.The supervision of the Court of Wards was established by Government Notifications published in the Hyderabad Gazette dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1956All564
Bhargava, J. 1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my brother Mehrotra, J, and agree with him but I would like to add a few words on the merits of the case. 2. The facts brought out in this petition show that originally the Sanad granted in favour of B. Ausan Singh conferred on him the rights of a proprietor in the pergana and he became entitled to realise the revenue which was payable by the sub-proprietors instead of the Government. Subsequently, however, this grant was resumed and it was decided that his successor B. Shiv Narain Singh was to be considered as the Tehsildar of Pergana Syudpore Bheittree and was to be allowed to hold the office hereditary. B. Shiv Narain Singh and after him his son B. Har Narain Singh did not agree to work as Tehsildars and to bear all expenses of administration and loss in collection. Ultimately this dispute ended in the grant of a sum of Rs. 36,330/- as pension to B. Har Narain Singh and his heirs, the amount being calculated on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad269
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O. S. No. 118 of 1950. 2. The facts are :--Ramakrishnaya, a retired District Registrar, and Ananda Rao, a retired Sub-Assistant Surgeon, were brothers governed by the Mitakshara Law. Both had divided themselves from the other members of the family and from each other. In 1934 Ramakrishnaya, the retired District Registrar, owned a house and garden and also some money and investment (mentioned in schedule A of the plaint) and Ananda Rao owned immovable properties described in item 2 of the plaint B schedule which he had got at partition and items 1 and 3 to 6 therein which were his self-acquisitions, and also large investments of moneys of his own. It is common ground that Ananda Rao was a rich brother and Ramakrishnaya was a poor brother. This Ramakrishnaya was childless though he had married twice. His childless second wife Radhamma alias Kaveri is even now a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad301; [1957]8STC222(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The decision in this batch of tax revision cases involves the construction of Rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales tax Act. The material portion of Rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules whose construction we are called upon to decide runs thus:'18(1):-- Any dealer who manufactures groundnut oil and cake from groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him may, on application to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area in which he carries on his business, be registered, as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake.(2) Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under Clause (k) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and (or) kernel purchased and converted by him into oil and cake provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover. Explanation 1 : For the purpose of this sub-rule: (a) 143 lb. of groundnut shall be taken to be equivalen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 23(1957)CLT324
Narasimham, C.J.1. These are applications by six of the ex-Zamindars of Ganjam district under Article 226 or the Constitution praying for relief against the State of Orissa, from apprehended danger to their property situated in portions of Ganjam Agency tracts known as 'Maliahs' by threat of executive action. The questions of law involved in all these applications are identical, and hence they were heard together and will be dealt with in one judgment.2. The zamindaris of these applicants were all situated in Ganjam plains (now partly in Orissa and partly in Andhra State) and had been permanently settled with them by the well-known Madras Regulation No. XXV of 1802. These zamindaris have been acquired by the respective Governments under the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act. Adjacent west of Ganjam plaina lie hilly tracts (inhabited mainly by aboriginals) known as Agency tracts, portions of which Were granted to these zamindars by various Sanads of the Governor-in-Council of Fort ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad368; [1957]8STC177(Mad)
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. 1. These are petitions for the Issue of writs of prohibition directed against the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, Non-resident special circle, Madras, requiring him not to take further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him to the respective petitioners. The point raised by the writ petitions at the stage of the final argument was as regards the constitutional validity of the Sales tax Law Validation Act, 1956 (Central Act VII of 1956) which we shall refer to as the impugned Act. 2. Before discussing the legal points raised, it would be useful to set out the main facts of the three cases which are nearly identical. 3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 37 of 1955 is the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Bangalore. This company which manufactures textile goods in Bangalore city was effecting sales in the State of Madras and the goods were delivered in Madras in pursuance of such sales. The Deputy Commercial tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!