Chennai Court April 1953 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.
K.T.M.T.M. Abdul Kayoom and anr. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1953
Reported in: AIR1953Mad900; [1953]24ITR116(Mad); (1953)2MLJ200
1. To answer the reference it is necessary that the decision of the three Judges of this Court in -- 'Abdul Kayum v. Commr. of Income-tax', 1939-7 ITR 652 (Mad) (A), should be reconsidered in the light of the later decision of the Judicial Committee in -- 'Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commr. of Income-tax', C. P. & Berar, Nagpur', AIR 1949 P. C. 311 (B). It may be observed that the decision of the Special Bench in -- '1939-7 I. T. R. 652 (Mad) (A)', has reference to this very assessee, who carried on the same business as he is now carrying on. A Division Bench of this court observed on an earlier occasion in -- 'Devarajulu Chetti and Co. v. Commr. of Income-tax', (C), that thedecision in --" Commr. of Income-tax v. Chengalvaraya Mudallar', AIR 1934 Mad 617 (2) (D), and in -- 'Chengalaroya Chettiar v. Commr. of Income-tax (Mad)', AIR 1937 Mad 300 (E), require reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Judicial Committee in -- 'AIR 1949 PC 311 (B)'. We, therefore, direct that this matt...
P. Rengaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Srirangam Municipal Council, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad213; (1953)IIMLJ394
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a batch of civil revision petitions filed against the decrees and judgments of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Trichirapalli.2. The facts are: the plaintiffs in this batch of small cause suits are retail dealers in grains, pulses etc., within the defendant Municipality. They have paid for and obtained from the defendant licences for their retail trade for the year 1944-45. According to the plaintiffs, the municipality had not clothed itself with the necessary ' powers, by means of a Gazette Notification, to levy licence fees as the provisions of Section 249 of the District Municipalities Act had not been complied with and which is not in dispute before me on account of the subsequent judgment of the High Court in CRP No. 251 of 1947 (Mad) (A). On the footing that the collection of the fees is illegal and that as the same is said to have been recovered under threat of prosecution, the payments were made under coercion and the defendant Munici...
Pogula Kesavayya Vs. Pogula Venkayamma Being Minor by Father and Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad267
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. C. R. P. No. 1988 of 1952 has been filed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Tenali in O. S. No. 268 of 1951. C. R. P. No. 1987 of 1952 has been filed against the order of the Same Judge in I. A. No. 835 of 1952 in O. S. No 268 of 1951.2. The facts are: the suit O. S. No. 268 of 1951 has been filed by Pogula Venkayamma, being a minor represented by her father and next friend B. Krishnaiah, against her husband for maintenance etc.3. The case for this husband was that it was quite true that he tied tali and as a matter of fact he lived with the plaintiff for sometime but that it was only a show of marriage, whatever that may mean, and that he is not liable for any amount as contended by the plaintiff.4. The suit underwent several adjournments, On 26-7-1952 when this suit of. 1951 stood posted for final hearing, the defendant was not ready. Therefore the learned District Munsif passed an order that the defendant will have to pay Rs. 40 as costs be...
Kunhi Sankara Ejaman Vs. M. Venkappa Bhatta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad320
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order made by the Principal District Munsif of Kasargod in I. A. No. 60 of 1952 in O. S. No. 392 of 1951. 2. The facts are: O. S. No. 773 of 1947 was filed by Shankar Ejaman, first defendant in O. S. No. 392 of 1951 against Venkappa Bhatta, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 392 of 1951 and others for a declaration that the property, the subject matter of the present suit, belonged to him and for an injunction for restraining respondents from interfering with petitioner's possession. The suit was dismissed. On that an appeal had been filed in the District Court of South Kanara and it is stated to be pending. 3. Venkappa Bhatta has thereupon filed this O. S. No. 392 of 1951 against Kunhi Shankar Ejaman (first defendant) and Krishna Bhatta (D. 2) asking for surrender of possession of the property involved in the prior suit and which was pending appeal and for mesne profits. 4. In these circumstances these defendants filed an ap...
Vinaitheertha thevar Vs. N.S. Viswanatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad508; (1953)IIMLJ504
1. One Chidambaram Pillai was the owner of the properties which are sought to be redeemed in the suit out of which the above Letters Patent Appeal has arisen. On 6-2-1917 under Ex. P. 1 he usufructuarily mortgaged these properties to the defendant-respondent, the mortgage money secured being a sum of Rs. 2850/-. The stipulation in the deed was that the mortgagee was to remain in possession, enjoy the usufruct until the 15th May 1923 when the mortgage amount would be paid and redemption would take place. The document in question evidences an ordinary usufructuary mortgage without any complications. On 29-10-1923 under Ex. D. 1 Chidambaram Pillai sold the equity of redemption in these properties to one A. N. R. M. Ramasathan Chettiar and the consideration recited in the sale deed was a sum of Rs. 8500 of which Rs. 2850 was reserved for payment to the mortgagee under Ex. P. 1, Rs. 150 for discharging a promissory note debt due by the vendor to the same usufructuary mortgagee, and a sum of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›