Chennai Court December 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.
Marimuthu Goundar Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ25
Ramaswami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been posted before a Bench at the instance of one of us on account of the important practice in procedure involved.2. The facts are : An ex parte decree was passed against the second defendant in S.C.S. No. 1852 of 1950 on 19th November, 1952. The second defendant filed I.A. No. 391 of 1952 on 20th November, 1952, to set aside the ex parte decree. No security was furnished along with the application. It was stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was prepared to give security for the decree amount. During the pendency of I.A. No. 391 of 1952 the second defendant filed I.A. No. 392 of 1952 on 6th December 1952, requesting the Court to accept the security bond. On 19th December 1952, adhesive stamps for eight annas were affixed to a separate sheet of paper and that sheet was attached to security bond. The District Munsif passed orders on 10th December, 1952, that the security was accepted and posted the application for counter-statemen...
S. A. Raju Chettiar and Others Vs. Collector of Madras and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad396; [1956]29ITR241(Mad)
The order of the Court was delivered by RAJAGOPALAN, J.Petitioners were members of a Hindu undivided family, of which Balagurumurthi was the kartha till January 25, 1946, when a partition was effected.Assessment proceedings for 1943-44 were completed on September 30, 1944. During the pendency of those proceedings, on September 4, 1944, a notice was issued which was served upon Balagurumurthi, who represented the assessee family. Proceedings for levy of penalty for concealment of income were thus initiated under section 28 of the Income-tax Act. Those proceedings terminated only on March 18, 1948, when a penalty of Rs. 83,000 : was imposed on the assessee, which it should be remembered was the Hindu undivided family.Meanwhile, steps had been taken under section 25A of the Act to get the partition dated January 25, 1946, recorded by the departmental authorities. The application was preferred on September 18, 1946. That application was allowed by the Income-tax Officer on December 31, 194...
K. S. Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1955
Reported in: [1956]29ITR515(Mad)
.The Order of the Court was pronounced byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question that was referred to this court on an application under section 66(2) of the Act was 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is material on record to justify the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the joint family was a partner in the Andhra Trading co., and not Naganatha Iyer in his individual capacity.'The assessee was a Hindu undivided family, which consisted of Narayanaswami Iyer, and his two adult sons, Naganatha and Ganapathy. Among the items of the business of the family carried on were rice and flour mills, firewood, oil cakes and soapnut powder. It was found by the Assistant Commissioner that both Naganatha and Ganapathy were incharge of the family business. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view, that Naganatha was the de facto managing member of the family. Naganatha was the partner eo nomine of the Andhra Trading Co., which traded among other things in firewood and oil cake...
C. Abdul Basith Sahib Vs. Shanmughasundaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ513
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore in O.S. No. 101 of 1946 and confirmed by the learned District Judge of Vellore in A.S. No. 377 of 1950.2. The facts are-Subramania Mudaliar, the father of the plaintiff, and Ponnuswami Mudaliar constituted an undivided Hindu joint family owning considerable properties. This Subramania Mudaliar was the Village Munsif of Veppur and he was also running a Mandi business at Vellore. On 16th December, 1926, Subramania Mudaliar executed the promissory note Exhibit B-2 for Rs. 20,000 in favour of Abdul Hakim Sahib. Inasmuch as this promissory note was engrossed upon a printed form usually employed by money-lenders on a large scale like Abdul Hakim Sahib, it does not recite the purpose for which the moneys were borrowed. There is no dispute, however, that this promissory note is fully supported by consideration. Towards this promissory note debt Rs. 5,000 was repaid on 17t...
Shri H.H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar, Senior Swamiar of Puthige Mutt an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad491; (1956)1MLJ532
Rajagopalan, J.1. These ten applications were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of appropriate Writs to prevent the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious Endowments from enforcing some of the provisions of the Madras. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was the validity of some of the amendments effected by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act XXVII of 1954 that was in issue.2. The Matadhipathis of all the eight Maths of Udipi, who together manage the affairs of the Sri Krishna Devara Math, Udipi, and conduct the worship therein by turns, filed W.P. No. 323 of 1955, in which were filed the affidavits and counter-affidavits which we had to consider in these proceedings. Each of the Matadhipathis also applied separately, each with reference to his own Math, raising the same issues as had been raised in W.P. No. 323 of 1955. Virtually similar reliefs were sought in W.P. No....
The Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Palikondaperumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: 1957CriLJ260
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koilpatti. The case arose out of a complaint preferred against the respondent by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, for an offence under Section 52 (a) read with Section 55 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act for furnishing false information by the respondent in his capacity as secretary of the Co-operative Marketing Society, Sankarankoll.2. Under Section 56 (3) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, no prosecution shall be instituted under the Act without the previous sanction of the Registrar. 'Registrar' is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act as meaning 'a person appointed to perform the duties of a Registrar of Co-operative Societies under this Act.' Under Section 3 of the Act, 'the State Government may appoint a person to be Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State of Madras or any portion of it and may, by general o...
S. Ranganatha Aiyangar Vs. Tiruparankundram Arumuganainar Trust Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ390
Govinda Menon, J.1. This case comes up before us on a reference by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as the question involved is bereft of direct authority.2. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 179 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai which was a suit to set aside a summary order under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, passed by the District Munsif, Madurai Town, in E.A. No. 228 of 1951 in E.P. No. 2 of 1951 on his file. The respondent herein obtained a decree against one Subramanian Chettiar in the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Town and in execution thereof attached the properties stated to belong to him whereupon the petitioner objected and filed a claim petition which was rejected by the District Munsif. At the time the application for attachment was made, the amount due under the decree came to Rs. 2979-6-3. The petitioner the defeated claimant has brought the suit to set aside the order of attachment and to establish his right to the property he claim...
Lakshmana Pillai Vs. Emakalaperumal Nadar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad399; (1956)2MLJ109
Govinda Menon, J.1. The order of reference to the Bench, states the reasons which impelled the learned Judges who heard the case in the first instance to place the matter before a Bench. As the whole case is before us we intend to deal with the question in its entirety. Valiavanda Vinayagar temple mentioned in schedule 1 of the plaint as well as the properties described in schedules 2 and 3 thereunder belonged to the family of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 for which one Manikkavasagam Pillai was the huqdar and manager in 1934. Under Exhibit B-2 dated 1st October, 1934, Manikkavasagam describing himself as the manager and huqdar of the temple and its properties and stating that he could not manage the affairs of the temple properly and that his successors cannot perform the puja and other appurtenant rituals assigned away the huqdar right and management of the temple and its properties to the first defendant for a consideration of Rs. 100. The document recites that as a result of ...
P. Manickam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad431; (1956)1MLJ236
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The view taken by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Appellate Tribunal on further appeal that no appeal lay against a mere notice of demand, purporting to be issued under Section 29 of the Income-tax Act, is correct. Such an appeal does not come within the purview of Section 30 of the Act. No further question of law arises.2. The petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150....
Christine Saldanha Vs. G.M.B.D' Souza and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad412; (1956)2MLJ70
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether a particular bequest by one J.P.N. D'Souza in his will dated 14th April, 1936, offends the provisions of Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act and is, therefore, void, and consequentially there is intestacy in respect of the property covered by the said bequest. The testator died on 4th August, 1944.2. The material provision in the will runs as follows:Clause 2. - 'That I bequeath these immoveable properties to the Lord Bishop of Mangalore who will collect the rent of the same from the tenants and after paying land assessment he will utilise the balance income in saying low masses for the repose of the souls of my father, mother and myself.Clause 11 of the will has also some relevancy, it is as follows:That as I am the God-father of my sister Mrs. Bertile Rego, my nephew Louis D'Souza, son of Mrs. Piad Mary D'Souza, and my nieces Grace Noronha, daughter of Mrs. Stella Noronha and Emma Gastel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »