Chennai Court November 1955 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.
Venkatalakshmi Ammal Vs. the Central Bank of India, Ltd., Coimbatore B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ114
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. No. 329 of 1953, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsiff of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 991 of 1952.2. The facts are: The plaintiff Venkatalakshmi Ammal's husband Narayana Rao had opened a 'Home Savings Safe' account with the Central Bank of India, Limited, Coimbatore branch. Narayana Rao died on. 12th September, 1950, having to his credit in the above account Rs. 2,146. The late Narayana Rao had executed and registered a will on 9th June, 1950, under which he has bequeathed this property among others absolutely to his wife Venkatalakshmi Ammal. On this Venkatalakshmi Ammal asking the Bank to pay the amount to her, the Bank has been insisting upon a succession certificate or indemnity bond. Therefore, this Venkatalakshmi Ammal filed O.S. No. 991 of 1952 for recovery of Rs. 2,200. The learned District Munsiff held that under Section 214 of ...
Muhammad Zackria by Power Agent V.T. Abdulla Rowther Vs. Abdul Karim R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ371
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Zackria Rowther against the order of the District Munsif of Valangiman at Kumbakonam, refusing to issue a commission for examining him at Singapore. He was the defendant in O.S. No 160 of IZ, on the file of that Court, a suit filed against him by one Abdul Kareem Rowther for recovering a sum of Rs. 2,400 evidenced by a settlement of accounts said to have been signed by him, with full knowledge and consent. His defence was that he did not sign in the accounts, and that the amount claimed was not due from him. He filed I.A. No. 601 of 1955 for examining him on commission, in Singapore on he ground that he was residing m Singapore, for more than 1 year past. The District Munsif held that it was essential in such a case, for him to appear in person in Court and deny the settlement of accounts and his signature therein. So he refused to issue a commission. Hence this petition.2. I have perused the entire records and heard the counsel ...
Sri Sundararajan and Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1955
Reported in: (1956)IMLJ339; [1956]7STC105(Mad)
ORDER1. The assessee was a registered dealer, registered under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the assessment year 1952-53 a sum of Rs. 46,456-12-6, which represented the amounts the assessee firm had collected that year from its purchasers by way of tax under Section 8-B of the Act, was included in its assessable turnover. The contention of the assessee firm, that it was not liable to pay sales tax on that sum, was negatived by the departmental authorities, and the Appellate Tribunal agreed with them. It was the correctness of that decision that the assessee challenged before us.2. On 7th January, 1954, a Division Bench of this High Court, which consisted of Satyanarayana Rao, J., and one of us, held in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar [1954] 5 S.T.C. 88, that under the scheme of the Act the amount collected by a registered dealer from the consumer by way of sales tax and paid over to the Gover...
The Indian Coffee Board Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad449; (1954)IIMLJ244; [1956]7STC135(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. This application for revision arises out of the assessment proceedings for 1952-53 under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The assessment was completed on 31st March, 1954.2. The petitioner, the Indian Coffee Board, is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Coffee Market Expansion Act, VII of 1942. The scope of Act VII of 1942 was explained in Indian Coffee Board v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 292, where it was held that despite the statutory composition the Board was a dealer as defined by Section 2(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, represented that he was not accepting as correct the decision in Indian Coffee Board v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 292. But as a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, it is an authority which we are bound to follow. It is on the basis of the liability of the petitioner as a dealer within the meani...
Ramanna Shetty and ors. Vs. Tejappa Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad405; (1956)1MLJ239
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal from the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara arises out of a suit for partition in O.S. No. 21 of 1949, of properties which at one time belonged to an aliyasanthana family.2. That family consisted of two branches called the Dodda Hadi Mane branch and the Sanna Hadi Mane branch. The parties to this suit all belong to the Sanna Hadi Mane branch. Daramma was the common ancestress of this branch. She had three daughters, Durgi, Rukku and Lingamma. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Rukku, and the defendants the descendants of Durgi. Lingamma's branch has now become extinct. On 19th February, 1896, a partition was effected between the two main branches by a registered deed. (Exhibit A-1). So far as (he properties allotted to the Sanna Hadi Mane branch were concerned, certain terms were embodied in this partition deed, which are material to the disposal of this case. The relevant clauses of the partition deed are th...
The Proprietor, Andhra Trading Company Vs. K. Muthuswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ477
Rajagopalan, J.1. AS a result of an accident at about 9-30 P.M. on 21st May, 1947, in which the motor lorry belonging to the first defendant and the motor bus belonging to the second defendant were involved, the plaintiff, a passenger in the bus, got his right arm crushed. Eventually that arm had to be amputated. The first defendant had insured the lorry with the third defendant, and the second defendant had taken out a policy issued by the fourth defendant. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 20,000 as damages, and he laid the suit against both defendants 1 and 2. In response to the notice issued through Court under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, defendants 3 and 4 applied to the Court and obtained permission to be impleaded as party defendants to the suit.2. The plaintiff pleaded that the accident was caused by the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles; alternatively, he pleaded that one or the other of the drivers was guilty of negligence, which eventually resulted in the p...
In Re: K.V. Dhanushkodi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad352; 1956CriLJ899; (1956)IMLJ414
Ramaswami Goundar, J.1. The accused, one Dhanuskodi Nadar, who is the appellant before us, was charged before the First Criminal Sessions of this court, presided over by our learned brother Eamaswami J. for offences under Section 420, I. P, C. and Section 467 read with Section 471, I.P.C. He is a merchant, said to have been carrying on business in betelnuts at Virudhunagar. As a result of the last world War, restrictions were imposed by the Government in the matter of export and import trade, and trading had to he done only on permits issued by the authorities concerned.As regards betelnut trade, about the middle of 1949, the commodity was placed under the licensing scheme on a quota basis. The merchant who intended to apply for a quota should make out that he was an established importer; and the accused chose the year 1945-46 as the basic year that being the best year for him and applied for permit by his application, Ex. P. 1, on the footing that he was trading to the tune of Rs. 4,2...
Palani Goundan and anr. Vs. Vanjiakkal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ498
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Second Appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. No 105 of 1950 confirming the preliminary decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Coimbatore in O.S. No 521 of 1946.2. The facts are:-The property in dispute belonged to one Karuppa Goundan, the plaintiff's father. He died in 1931 leaving surviving him his widow Chinna Karupayee, a minor son Chinnan alias Karuppan born on 25th September, 1925, and two daughters, the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The widow managed the properties on behalf of the minor son till her death in 1939. Subsequently the plaintiff was managing by cultivating the property and maintaining her minor brother Chinnan. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant fell out. It is the case for the plaintiff that in order to defeat her sister she executed a registered lease deed Exhibit B-5 dated 19th June, 1942, in favour of Kandaswami Gounder for five years in respe...
P.S. Ranga Iyer Vs. Chidambara Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ503
Govinda Menon, J.1. O.P. No. 43 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, South Malabar at Palghat was a petition under Sections 9-A and 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) for scaling down the amount due under a usufructuary mortgage Exhibit A-1 dated 18th August, 1930, executed in favour of Narayana Iyer, the manager of the joint family by Sivarama Iyer, family manager and 15 others who constituted members of a joint family, for Rs. 31,000 charging various items of properties. Executants 4 and 13 to the document are the petitioners who applied for the scaling down of the mortgage amount and executants 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 3, 12, 5, 14, 15, 6, 7, and 16 were respectively respondents 2 to 14 in the Court below. The first respondent was the mortgagee who died pending suit and his legal representative the 17th respondent in the Court below, is the appellant before us.2. It was stated in the petition that Exhibit A-1 fell within the ambit of Section 9-A,...
B. Varadarajulu Chettiar Vs. State of Madras by Secretary, Home Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ145
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner held the post of Official Receiver, Gombatore, and was in receipt of the pay and allowances due to an officer he iding a post borne on that cadre. He was also entrusted with the powers of an Additional Judge of the. Court of Small Causes and with the powers of a Rent Controller, but apparently there was no separate payment of allowances for discharging these functions.2. On 6th August, 1952, twelve charges were framed by the District Judge against the petitioner, and these related to the discharge of his functions as an Official Receiver under the administrative control of the District Judge. The Additional District Judge of Coimbatore conducted the enquiry into these charges and submitted his report on 26th June, 1953. Of the twelve charges the learned Additional District Judge held that two charges had been fully proved and that two others were proved in part.3. On 20th March, 1953, two further charges were framed by the District Judge, and on 1s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »