Chennai Court September 1951 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.
Janab N.S. Sattar Sahib Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad605; (1951)2MLJ656
1. By their order dated 17th April 1951, the Government of Madras, set aside an order of the Central Road Traffic Board, and Subba Rao, J., quashed this order of Government by his order dated 1st August 1951. The learned Judge quashed the order on the ground that it disclosed 'ex facie' that they passed their order after reading a petition from certain Congress workers which was not strictly permissible in law. Though the Government did not say that they acted upon the petition inasmuch as they did not say that the petition in no manner influenced them in coming to a conclusion, it could not be said that that petition might not have influenced the Government in passing their order. As matters extraneous to the application pending before them had been taken into consideration, the learned Judge was of the opinion that their order should be quashed.2. The question which now arises on an application taken out for a writ of 'mandamus' by the party who was successful before the Government o...
Jerome D'Silva vs. the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad853; (1952)1MLJ35; MANU/TN/0327/1952
1. The petitioner is the owner of lorry No. MDX 1251, He had a public carrier permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara, and he was engaged in transporting milk, firewood, timber, stores and other materials from the neighbouring villages into Mangalore. On or about 14-4-1950, the lorry was detained on suspicion that it contained smuggled rice. The driver of the lorry was subsequently charged by the police under section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act in C. C. 602 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mangalore. After a full enquiry, the Magistrate discharged the accused driver holding that the accusation was groundless. This order was passed on 6-1-1951.2. Meanwhile, the Regional Transport Offi-cer called upon the petitioner by a communication dated 3-11-1950 to show cause why his permit should not be cancelled or suspended as the lorry was engaged in smuggling food g...
In the Matter of P. Ramanujachari Advocate, High Court, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad149; (1951)IIMLJ661
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. There were two charges against the respondent, who is an advocate of this Court; they ran as follows: '(1) that you Mr. P. Ramanujachari, being an advocate of the High court of Judicature at Madras represented to Mr. N. Krishnaswami Nayudu that one Balamukundoss, your client had full title to a property 'Amir Bagh' in Mangadu village, Wali-ajah Taiuk, thereby induced the complainant abovenamed to agree to purchase it and received from him in or about April and May 1947 a sum of Rs. 2,000 first as advance and later another sum of Rs. 2,000 and again another sum of Rs. 250 towards remuneration with full knowledge that the said representations were made by you falsely with fraudulent and dishonest intention; (2) that the sum of Rs. 2,000 received by you on the second occasion for and on behalf of Balamukundoss had not been paid by you to the said Balamukundoss and that you have misappropriated the same dishonestly and fraudulently and that therefore a decree has been o...
Srinivasa Aiyar Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad193; (1951)2MLJ649
1. These eight petitions have been posted before us as they raise the important question of the validity of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949, Madras Act VI of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act). The Act came into force on the 29th March 1949 before the Constitution of India came into force. In five of the petitions, the marriages in question were performed before the Constitution came into force. Criminal R. C. Nos. 713 and 1431 Of 1950 relate to the same marriage and Criminal R. C. Nos. 506 and 1481 of 1950 and Criminal M. P. No. 157 of 1951 are petitions relating to marriages performed before the Constitution of India came into force. In Criminal R. C. No. 592 of 1951 and Criminal M. P. No. 223 and 1099 of 1951 the alleged marriages were after the Constitution of India came into force. In all these cases, criminal proceedings were initiated for an offence under Section 494 I. P. C. read with Section 4(2) of the Act. In some of the cases proceedings were taken...
Aravamudha Iyengar, Formerly a Minor Since Declared Major and His Guar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad245; (1952)1MLJ251
1. The first defendant whose adoption has been declared invalid by the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant before us. The following pedigree explains the relationship between the parties:_______________________________________________________ | | Ramaswami Bhattar Kuppa Bhattar=Srirangaminal | | adopted Rangaraju ______________________ Bhattar (died on 5.3.42) | || Krishna Bhattar Ponnam malRamaswami Bhattar (born on 3.12.1887, (2nd d eft.)(Plaintiff) died on 6.6.1901) married Rukmini Ammal(died on 17.4.1940)alleged to have adopted|minor Aravamndum-1st defendantRamaswami Bhattar and Kuppa Bhattar were two brothers. The plaintiff is the grandson of Ramaswami Bhattar. The plaintiff's father Rangaraja Bhattar died on the 5th March 1942. Kuppa Bhattar had a son Krishna Bhattar and a daughter Ponnammal, the second defendant. Krishna Bhattar was married to Rukmani Ammal. Krishna Bhattar was born on the 3rd December 1887 but died on 6th June 1901. On the dale on which he died, he exec...
Commissioner of Income Tax, Excess Profits Tax, Madras Vs. Modern thea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad255; [1951]20ITR588(Mad); (1951)2MLJ625
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The two questions that were referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian income tax Act are as follows:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the film hire derived by the assessee under agreements which provided for fixed hire charges in respect of exhibition of films in Indian States is not exempt from Excess Profits Tax as profits accruing or arising in the Indian States within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act. '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the films hire derived by the assessee under agreements which provided for hire at a percentage of the collections in respect of the exhibition of films in Indian. States is not exempt from Excess Profits Tax, as profit accruing or arising in the Indian States within the meaning of the third proviso to Section 5 of the Excess Profits Tax Act.' 2. The assessee is a public limited comp...
H.C. Kothari and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad227; [1951]20ITR579(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. The question is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest on securities received by the applicants should be treated as earned income, falling under the head 'income from business' (Section 10), or income from other sources (8. 12) and should not be treated as income from securities (Section 8)?'The assessees during the accounting year ending with 31-12-1945 had several sources of incomevia., interest on securities, profits of business, dividends and other imprests. The business, however ended in loss. They claimed earned income relief in respect of the interest on securities on the ground that the securities, the Government Promissory Notes, which they purchased and sold as part of their business formed stock in trade and that the profits arising in such purchase and sales including the interest on securities should be treats ed as business profits. As the other business ended in loss, naturally they could not claim earned income re...
Thamsi Goundan Vs. Kanni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad529; (1952)1MLJ68
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This petition is by the husband against an order of maintenance passed by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore, under Section 488. Criminal P. C., in favour of his wife. The petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs. .15 a month. There is a clear finding by the Magistrate that the petitioner has neglected and refused to maintain the respondent herein. After going through the records I am satisfied that the lower Court was justified in arriving at that conclusion. On the merits, therefore, there is no case for the petitioner herein.2. The question that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 488 Criminal P. C. is 'ultra vires' of the Constitution because the provision is only in favour of women without a similar provision in favour of men. In short his argument is that in the absence of a provision that the husband must in similar circumstances also be awarded maintenance from the wife, the provision is 'ultra vires'. He says tha...
Kodali Bapayya and ors. Vs. Yadavalli Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad884; (1952)IMLJ227
1. This batch of second appeals arises' out of suits instituted by the respondent for ejecting certain tenants. The properties are situated in a village called Yanike-padu. In 1754 one Venkatarayanim Garu who is stated to have been the then Zamindar of Bezwada granted them as in am to one Chandra-sekhara Sastri, Ex. P. 1 and the in am was confirmed in 1865 during the enfranchisement proceeding's. The plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the inamdar. The defendants are the tenants in possession of various parcels of land comprised in this inam.2. The plaintiff sued to eject them and to recover mesne profits. The defendants resisted the suits on the ground that they had occupancy rights in the land and that therefore, they could not be evicted. They also pleaded that there was no notice to quit as required - by law and that, therefore, the suite were not maintainable. The learned District Munsif held that the defendants had not establishod occupancy rights and that, therefore, they ...
Joshuna B. Powers Incorporated Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad17
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. These are appeals against the order of the Master dismissing the applications taken out by the 1st and 2nd defendants separately, for leave to defend but on practically the same grounds.2. The plaintiffs belong to New York; the 1st defendant is the Express Newspapers Limited, and the 2nd defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs were acting as the representatives of the 1st defendant at New York. The defendants entered into a contract with one Ben Shulman of New York for the purchase of a printing press and asked the plaintiffs, their business representatives at New York, to advance a sum of 10,000/- dollars towards the cost of the machinery. Defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiffs for 10,000/- dollars on 9-4-1947. The present suit is on that promissory note,3. The defence as disclosed in the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to defend is that the suit promissory note was not in...