Chennai Court July 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Sesha Shet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad77; (1953)2MLJ364
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coondapur, in C. C. No. 234 of 1951 on his file. The respondent was charged before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-for an offence under Section 15 (b), Madras General Sales-tax Act that is, for the non-payment of tax amounting to Rs. 2651-6-4 due for the year 1949-1950 in spite of service of the demand notice dated 12-8-1951. This notice was issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and was served on the respondent on 13-8-1951 giving three weeks' time for payment. The amount was not paid within that time. An appeal was preferred by the respondent to the Commercial Tax Officer, and that was dismissed on 4-10-1951. The Commercial Tax Officer gave three days' time from the date of service of the order dismissing the appeal for payment of the amount, service being on 15-10-1951. Even then the amount was not paid by the respondent. Thereafter, this complaint was file...
P.P. Kutti Keya and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad621; (1954)IMLJ117
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The common question of law that is raised in these petitions is whether the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act 20 of 1933 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder have become void and unenforceable as being repugnant to the Constitution. In C. M. P. No. 13169 of 1950 the facts are that the Government of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 2 (i-a) of the Act issued on 27-6-1949 a notification declaring cocoanuts, copra and arecanuts as commercial crops. On 15-11-1949, a further notification was made under Section 4 of the Act declaring the district of Malabar as notified area under the Act in respect of the above commodities. In May 1950, a Market Committee was constituted under Section 4-A of the Act and on 26-11-1950 and 27-11-1950 the Committee published certain notices marked as Exs. A, B, B-1 and B. 2 and it is the Validity of these notices that is in question in this petition. Exhibit A provides that t...
Ammalammal and ors. Vs. Gnanammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad473; (1953)2MLJ649
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The legal representatives of the first defendant, Raghava Reddi, are the appellants. On 26th October 1933, Raghava Reddi executed a promissory note, Ex. A, for a sum of Rs. 1000 in favour of two persons, Munuswaml Reddi and his wife, Rajammal. Rajammal died sometime in July 1934, leaving behind a Will, Ex. C. l, dated 19th June 1934, whereby she bequeathed her interest in the promissory note to her sister, Gnanammal. On 11th May 1936, Raghava Reddi sold under Ex. E some lands to Munuswami Reddi in full satisfaction of the promissory note. Ex. A. The sale was for a sum of Rs. 1045 that being the amount due on the promissory note on that date. On 5th November 1938, Gnanammal filed the present suit against Raghava Reddi to recover hall the amount due on the promissory note -- O. S. No. 150 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput. The allegations in the plaint are that Rajammal had advanced half the amount under the promissory note, Ex. A., an...
Nidugonda Rudramani and anr. Vs. Chaduvula Srisailam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad200; (1953)2MLJ403
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1.This petition raises a question relating to court-fee. The petitioners instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit house alleging that the defendants who were let into possession of the suit house as licensee refused to vacate the same when demanded. They valued the suit under Section 7(xi)(cc), Court-fees Act.The recitals in the plaint were that in a partition between the plaintiffs and their brother the suit house was allotted to the share of the latter, that their brother allowed the defendants to Use the suit house as licensees, that after the death of their brother they became entitled to the property and that in spite of the revocation of the licence the defendants refused to surrender possession of the same to them and denied the plaintiff's right.2. On an objection taken by the Court-fee examiner that the suit was not correctly valued, the question was gone into by the District Munsif and it was decided by him that the value had to be...
Nagoor Ammal and anr. Vs. M.K.M. Meeran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad770
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. with his leave dismissing 'S. A. N. 1958 of 3946'. It arises out of a suit for partition of property which originally belonged to one Hussain Meera, a Sunni Mahomedan. On 9-11-1914 he executed a deed of settlement (Ex. P. 1) in favour of his second wile Nainammal Bibi. The occasion was his proposed marriage to a third wife. The decision of this appeal depends on a construction of the terms of this Settlement Deed. The material portions 0 this deed are as follows:'I have settled upon you for your maintenance the undermentioned nanja land worth Rs. 2000. Therefore this is a settlement deed executed (by me) consenting that you should enjoy for your lifetime the income alone from the said nanja land, that you should not make any gift, sale or hypothecation etc. of the said land, that if you should hereafter have issue by me, the said issue should enjoy the said land hereditarily, and that i...
income-tax Officer (Circle I), Salem Vs. Indian Insurance and Banking ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad197; [1953]24ITR334(Mad); (1953)2MLJ496
Mack, J. 1. The point this appeal raises is whether a Crown debt for Income-tax, as it was then for the years 1945 to 1947 due by a mortgagor is, on the application of the Income-tax Officer, payable in priority out of the rents and profits collected by a receiver appointed in a simple mortgage suit filed by the mortgagee. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Crown debt was entitled to priority only as against unsecured creditors, taking the view that the rents and profits from the hypotheca constituted part of the mortgaged property upon which the debt due to the mortgagee was secured. This appeal has been filed by the Income-tax Officer concerned.2. The learned Subordinate Judge was partly guided by a Rangoon decision -- 'Ma Joo Tean v. Collector of Rangoon', AIR 1934 Rang 321 (A) which appears to be the only decision out of several considered by the learned Subordinate Judge which is in point. That was a case in which the Collector of Rangoon claimed Rs. 1029 Court-fee payabl...
K.V. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. Devar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1953
Reported in: AIR1954Mad248; (1953)2MLJ525
1. This is an appeal against the order of Somasundaram J. transferring a suit on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chittoor to the file of the District Munsif, Kozhikode. The appeal purports to be under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It has been decided by the Supreme Court recently that an order transferring a suit from one Court to another is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15: See -- 'Asrumati Debi v. Kumar Rupendra Deb', (A).2. The decision in -- 'Krishna Reddi v. Thanikachala', AIR 1924 Mad 90 (B) on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant must be deemed to have been overruled by this decision of the Supreme Court. The appeal is therefore incompetent and is dismissed. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›