Chennai Court March 1952 Judgments
Dhanam Alias Dhanalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. Varadarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad176; (1952)2MLJ176
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiffs, who were the 2nd and 3rd wives of Pr. Srinivasa Mudaliar, who died on 15-12-1943, filed O. S. No. 37 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Velloro, for partition and recovery of possession of their share of the properties left by the deceased Srinivasa Mudaliar. The suit was based on the ground that according to Act 18 of 1937, the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, the widows are entitled to a share of the properties of the deceased husband in equal rights with those of any sons left behind by the deceased. As Madras Act 26 of 1947 which enables the widows to claim their rights in agricultural lands as well had not come into force, when Srinivasa Mudaliar died and when this suit was filed, in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court -- 'In Re a Special Reference under Section 213 of the Government of India Act, 1935', 1941 F. C. R. 12 and -- 'Meghraj v. Alla Rakhia', 1942 F. C. R. 52, the plaintiffs are not entitled to cl...
Tag this Judgment!V.O. Vakkan Vs. the Government of the Province of Madras Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad86; (1952)2MLJ353
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cochin for a declaration that certain orders passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal and by the Board of Revenue on revision in respect of sales tax assessment for 1945-46 are illegal, ultra vires, unauthorised and opposed to the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and hence the appeal.2. The facts of this case can be better understood by first referring to the material provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (Act IX of 1939) and the rules framed thereunder. This Act was amended in 1947 and 1949. But we are concerned in this case with the provisions of the Act as they stood before these amendments. The descriptive title of the Act is :'An Act to provide for the levy of a general tax on the sale of goods in the Province of Madras....
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Kumaraswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.A.S.V. Karuppuswami Mooppanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad380; (1952)2MLJ785
1. These are appeals preferred under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Satyanarayana Rao J., in S. A. Nos. 464 and 465 of 1946 whereby he reversed the judgment of the District Judge of Mathurai in A. S. Nos. 294 and 295 of 1944 which in turn had reversed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Mathurai in O. S. No. 100 of 1943 and No. 82 of 1943. The appellants in this Court were the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 100 of 1943, Sub-Court, Mathurai and the suit was for damages for non-acceptance of goods under a contract dated 13-5-1943. The defendant in this suit filed O. S No. 82 of 1943 in the Sub-Court, at Mathurai, against the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 100 of 1943 claiming damages for non-acceptance of goods under contract dated 3-6-1943. Both the suits were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment and so were the appeals in the District Court and in, this Court.2. The facts material for the purpose of these appeals are these : Both the parties are prominent merchants in...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmugham Chettiar Vs. K.A. Govindasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1961Mad428
1. The dispute in this second appeal relates to nearly nine acres of land which, along with some other properties, were originally owned by two persons Adimoolam and Thambusami, and were the subject of a mortgage in favour of one Adinarayana Pillai. One Doraisami became the purchaser of the disputed properties from the owners, Adimoolani and Thambusami, with an undertaking to discharge the mortgage of all the properties. But he did not conform to that agreement.By his will Ex. D. 7 dated 17-10-1930, Dorasami bequeathed his ownership in these and other properties in favour of his only son, the fifth defendant, and his daughter-in-law the 2nd defendant, for their lives, with a vested remainder firstly in favour of the male children of the fifth and the second defendants, and failing the birth of any male children to them, in favour of their female children, with absolute rights. There were also further directions in the will that in case the fifth and second defendants did not have any p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.A.A. Beyabani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad1002; (1952)2MLJ398
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Cri. M. P. No. 447 of 1952: This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in Cri. Ap. No. 682 of 1950. That was an appeal preferred by the state against the acquittal of the accused by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Nellore in respect of a charge for an offence under Section 44, Madras District Police Act. One of the grounds on which leave is sought is that this prosecution is barred under Section 63, Madras District Police Act. I must state at once that this point was neither raised before the trial Court nor was that raised before me when the appeal was heard. I think at the time when the appeal was heard, the advocate must have bestowed some attention on this point and very probably he rightly felt that there was no force in this contention, and that is why he did not raise it before me. However, as the point has been raised in this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, I must deal with it.2. Section 53...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.K. Haja AllaudIn Maracair Ammapatnam Vs. the Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad824; [1952]22ITR545(Mad); (1953)IMLJ323
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. The following question has been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1), Indian Income-tax Act:'Whether there was evidence to hold that the partnership constituted by the deed dated 13-1-1944 was not genuine.'One S. S. K. Haja Allauddin Maracair carried on business in piece goods at Colombo from the year 1935 under the name and style of S. S. K. Haja Allauddin and Sons. Upto the accounting year ending 31-12-1943 his income was assessed in the status of an individual. During the assessment year 1945-46, however, it was claimed by the assessee that the business ceased to be owned by the individual Haja Allauddin Maracair and that it had become the business of a partnership which came into existence on 1-1-1944 evidenced by a deed of partnership of 13-1-1944. The accounting year of the assessee is the calendar year 1944, the assessment year being 1945-46. Under the Business Names Ordinance obtaining in Ceylon this partnership was reg...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnu Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: 1956CriLJ1000
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a petition to quash the committal of the 69 accused by the Special Assistant First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 97 persons were charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153, 117, 148, 149, 201, 324, 326, 364, 302, 307, 395, 457 and 380, I.P.C.; and also for offences under Sections 3 to 6, Indian Explosive Substances Act, Section 126, Indian Railways Act, Section 25 (c), Indian Telegraph Act and Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act.Of the persons charge-sheeted, ten were absconding and the enquiry therefore went on against the rest, the case against the absconders being separated. Of the 87, the learned Magistrate discharged 18 and committed the petitioners herein. They have been committed to take their trial, in the sessions-for offences under Sections 120-B, 121-A, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 326, 380, 397, 457, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4, Indian Explosive Substances Act, Section 126, Indian Railways Act and Section 19(f), Indian Arms Act...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanyam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Isaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad12; (1952)2MLJ196
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. I am inclined after bearing both sides fully to uphold the order of the court below except to the extent of that part of it which relates to the award of Rs. 5 as ccsts, payable by the first defendant to the plaintiffs as a condition of the amendment of the written statement. The suit was one which certainly involved a fairly high stake, and having regard to the considerations, which might well operate against the granting of the amendment, the least that the court below ought to have done was to make the provision of costs more decent than the paltry figure of Rs. 5 taxeJ by it in the exercise of its discretion. The amendment was either one which should have been permitted conditionally or unconditionally. If it is to be treated as a case in which the amendment can only be ordered conditionally, and if the condition as to payment of costs is to be regarded as within the ambit of the conditional character of such an order, and, if the order itself is susceptible ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Umanatha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad226; (1953)2MLJ400
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an unusual criminal revision case filed against an unusual order made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Tiruchirapalli division in Crl.M.P. No. 82 of. 1952 in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1951.2. Before entering into the merits of this case, I may point out that in a circular issued. by the High Court of Madras dated 10th. January 1951 interlocutory petitions of this nature are thoroughly deprecated and the Honourable-Judges point out as follows:'Instances have come up to the High Court which disclose that a system of procedure not contemplated by the Code is developing in the subordinate criminal courts. la warrant cases (and a fortiori in Sessions eases also) accused persons before they are charged and put upon their defence anticipate their defence by petitions raising preliminary points upon which the court passes judgment. These are then brought up on revision to the High Court pending which, the trialof the case is adjourned. The High Court desir...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnu Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad192
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Under Rule 325, Criminal Rules of Practice, copies of any portion of the record of a criminal case must be furnished to the parties concerned on payment 6f prescribed charges for the stamp paper which is required for the record in question. In these cases to avoid delay, the case diary appears to have been shown to the advocate of the accused, so that if need be, he can use it for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. If this is not done, as the accused is entitled to copies of statement made under Section 162 for cross-examination, he shall have to be given these copies first and then only the cross-examination can be taken up. This will undoubtedly lead to long delays. To avoid this, case diary is shown to the other side so that he can use it for cross-examining the witnesses without any adjournment, and further delay. If afterwards, copies are not required the accused need not furnish the stamp papers or the prescribed charges. There is no obligation on ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »