Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing S. Ramaswami Poosari vs The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments ... on 20 August, 1934

Sankar Nath Mullick And Anr. vs Smt. Lakshmi Sona Datta on 15 June, 2004

7. A founder has right to prescribe a line of succession to the office of shebait. When once he has laid down the lime of succession, he is not entitled to alter the same or to interfere in the management, unless he has, by the deed of endowment, reserved the right to do so. (Bindtrabum v. Shri Ramji Maharaj ; Gowri Kumar v. Rama Nimoyee ILR 50 Cal 197 : AIR 1923 Cal 30; Sidhan Lal v. Gowri Shankar, 40 IC 165 : AIR 1917 All 264; Ramaswami v. Madras H.R.E. Board, ; Sankatha v. Brij Mohan AIR 1958 All 271). The conditions relating to the rule of succession of shebaitship form and integral part of the dedication itself.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - D K Seth - Full Document

Mohamed Khasim vs State Of Mysore By Sales Officer, No. 7Th ... on 10 August, 1954

A month earlier to that decision the same Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with a case of a job printer and it has been reported in -- 'Ramaswami v. State of Madras', (C). The assessee there was a job printer and tendered bills for printing work making a distinction between the value of printing and also the value of papers supplied separately. The learned Judge observed that if it was the customer's paper that was used and if that paper was sold by the printer himself and used for the printing, that sale would be" liable to tax, if the total turnover of these sales was above Rs. 10,000/-. Regarding another item, in the bill shown as a receipt for Civil Court, work done, which obviously included the value of paper supplied and the labour involved in printing, the Court remarked that there was no need to apportion the amount between the cost of labour and cost of material deemed to have been sold within the meaning of the definition of "Works contract" as the amount is below the taxable limit. In the latter decision referred to above, full report of which is yet to be published, the assessee was engaged in constructing contracts of all kinds such as buildings, road and bridges, etc. He contended that works contracts, of the nature are not contracts for sale of goods and cannot be brought within the ambit of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The learned Judges who dealt with that contention observed that the transaction denoted by the expression "sale of goods" in the Sale of Goods Act has a well defined meaning under law and that the power of Provincial Legislature to levy a tax on sale of goods is confined only to the transaction of sale as understood by the Parliament in the United Kingdom in the law relating to sale of goods and any attempt of the Legislature to tax under the guise of such power transactions which are outside it, will be ultra vires and must be declared as invalid. It was also held in that case that contracts which involve labour and work may relate either to chattel or to immoveable properties and that as the contractor is required to supply himself with the materials necessary for producing the things by employing labour and work such contracts are considered in law to be entire and indivisible in the sense that complete fulfilment of promise is a condition precedent for demanding consideration and that the supply of material by the employee or the contractor does not involve any element of sale.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The Commissioner vs S.Munusamy Chettiar

“Reference was made in the judgment to the decision of Viswanatha Sastri J. in Ramaswami v. Board of Commissioner Madras Hindu Religious Endowments reported in (1950) 2 MLJ 511, where on account of the long public religious worship what were originally memorials for heroes or martyrs had 10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 10:05:53 pm ) A.S.(MD)No.108 of 2015 subsequently developed info-temples and came to he recognised as temples.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Srimathy - Full Document

The Commissioner vs S.Munusamy Chettiar

“Reference was made in the judgment to the decision of Viswanatha Sastri J. in Ramaswami v. Board of Commissioner Madras Hindu Religious Endowments reported in (1950) 2 MLJ 511, where on account of the long public religious worship what were originally memorials for heroes or martyrs had 10/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2025 09:03:35 pm ) A.S.(MD)No.108 of 2015 subsequently developed info-temples and came to he recognised as temples.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Srimathy - Full Document

Pazhangotte Unnikanna Menon vs Karimkulangara Tarward Karnavan, ... on 15 March, 1937

The melkanom in question cannot therefore be upheld under the general law, nor does Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act empower the Endowments Board to authorise an alienation of temple property by persons not competent under the general law to deal with it. That section only invalidates alienations of the kind specified therein by competent persons unless sanctioned by the Board on the ground of necessity or benefit and, as pointed out in Ramaswami Poosari v. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board (1934) 68 M.L.J. 178 in which the powers of the Board under Section 18 of the Act as amended in 1930 were considered, the Board has no powers of interference with hereditary trustees of excepted temples, as in this case, in matters of internal management. The Act does not authorise the Board to ignore the existence of hereditary trustees or supersede them, nor does Section 18 empower the Board to authorise an alienation of temple property by a person not competent to deal with it under the general law. There was also no occasion for the exercise of any emergency powers and it follows that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the melkanom was invalid. The suit was therefore rightly dismissed and the first plaintiff may enforce his claim, if any, in respect of the renewal fee for the melkanom in a separate suit.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pazhangette Unnikanna Menon vs Karimkulangara Tarwad Karnavan ... on 15 March, 1937

The melkanom in question cannot therefore be upheld under the general law, nor does Section 76, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act empower the Endowments Board to authorize an alienation of temple property by persons not competent under the general law to deal with it. That section only invalidates alienations of the kind specified therein by competent persons unless sanctioned by the Board on the ground of necessity or benefit, and as pointed out in Ramaswami Poojari v. Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Board AIR 1935 Mad 755, in which the powers of the Board under Section 18 of the Act as amended in 1930 were considered, the Board has no powers of interference with hereditary trustees of excepted temples, as in this case, in matters of internal management. The Act does not authorize the Board to ignore the existenee of hereditary trustees or supersede them, nor does Section 18 empower the Board to authorize an alienation of temple property by a person not competent to deal with it under the general law. There was also no occasion for the exercise of any emergency powers and it follows that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the melkanom was invalid. The suit was therefore rightly dismissed and plaintiff 1 may enforce his claim, if any, in respect of the renewal fee for the melkanom in a separate suit. The second appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 3. Leave is refused.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1