Chennai Court September 1956 Judgments
Palwanna Nadar and ors. Vs. Annamalai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad330
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and Judgment of Chandra Reddi,- J., in S. A. No. 835 of 1948 (reported as Annamalai Ammal v. Sundara-thammal : AIR1953Mad404 , reversing the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A. S. No. 89 of . 1947, affirming the dismissal of O. S. No. 1 of 1946, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi.2. The suit properties, namely, three and odd acres of dry land and a house belonged to the joint family of Mahalinga Nadar and his sons. This Mahaiinga Nadar had married twice, namely, the first defendant's sister as his first wife and the first defendant as his second wife. On account of disputes between the wives the first defendant was living separately. The first defendant had born to Mahalinga Nadar the present plaintiff.3. On 3-2-1921 when the plaintiff was six years old Mahalinga Nadar executed a settlement deed, Ex, P. 1, the relevant portion of Which runs as follows:'You are my second wife...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatachalam Iyer Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Secy. to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad623
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J., in W. P. No. 1 of 1956, and relates to the grant of a stage carriage permit for a bus to ply on the route Kollegal to Saggiam in Coimbatore District. Several transport operators made applications for the grant of this permit, among whom it is sufficient to mention the appellant S. Venkatachalam Aiyar, proprietor, Janaki Motor Service, Satyamangalam and P. N. Ramaswami Gounder, Proprietor, Sri Ram Transports, Satyamangalam, hereinafter referred to as the respondent.The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore on a consideration of the several applications to them, granted a permit to the appellant before us by their order dated 27th June 1955. The material portion of this order relating to the relative merits of the appellant and the respondent is as follows :'Applicant No. 8 (respondent) has not direct interest in this line and his headquarters is at a distance of 69 miles from Kollegal. His applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. T.K.C.K. Panikkar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad752; (1957)1MLJ131
1. This is a petition, to revise the order passed in I. A. No; 1102 of 1954 in O. S, No, 603 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. O. S. No. 603 of 1954 was a suit filed under the summary procedure prescribed under O. 37 of the C. P. Code on foot of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendant was served with notice of summons in the suit he instructed an advocate to appear on his behalf in order that he might obtain leave to defend the suit. The petition for leave to defend was not immediately filed notwithstanding the adjournment of the suit twice to enable this to be done. Thereupon the suit was decreed ex parte on 20-9-1954.2. The next proceeding in the suit was an application by the defendant I. A. No. 1100 of 1954 for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application I. A. No. 1102 of 1954 for the grant of leave to defend the suit. In the common affidavit in support of these petitions, the defendant stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Tile Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR250(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - The questions referred to this Court under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act are :(1) Whether the modification of the assessment of capital gains from Rs. 61,140 to Rs. 81,863 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is valid ?(2) Whether the capital gains of Rs. 81,863 are exempt under the third proviso to section 12B (1) The assessee is a firm of two partners who were engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tiles, and the present proceedings relate to the assessment of the year 1948-49, the accounting period being the year ended 12th April, 1948. One of the partners of the assessee firm died on 3rd April, 1946, and the business was stopped on 20th August, 1947. There was litigation between the son of the deceased partner and the surviving partner in the course of which a commissioner was appointed by the court to effect a sale of the assets of the partnership and the commissioner sold the properties by public auction on 24th August, 1947....
Tag this Judgment!Gowri Tile Works and ors. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad453
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1.The questions referred to this court under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act are:1. Whether the modification of the assessment of capital gain from Rs. 61,140 to Rs. 81,863 by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is valid? 2. Whether the capital gains of Rs. 81,863 are exempt under the third proviso to Section 12(B)(1)?The assessee is a firm of two partners who were engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tiles, and the present proceedings relate to the assessment of the year 1948-49 the accounting period being the year ended 12-4-1948. One of the partners of the assessee firm died on 3-4-1946 and the business was stopped on 20-8-1947. There was litigation between the son of the deceased partner and the surviving partner in the course of which a commissioner was appointed by the court to effect a sale of the assets or the partnership and the commissioner sold the properties by public auction on 24-8-1947. Rs. 1,50,089/- was the price realis...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppammal Vs. Vellingiri Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad641
1. These two writ petitions raise for consideration a very important question as to the scope of Section 4 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (XXV Of 1955). The two petitions arise out of the same order of the Revenue divisional Officer ana seek respectively writs of certiorari and mandamus in regard to matters Which we shall elucidate a little later.2. The petitioner is a land owner. The properly now in dispute whose extent is 92 acres 67 cents was purchased by her under a deed of sale dated 23rd May 1955. The first respondent Vellingiri Gounder and another Pappias Naidu (not a party to the petition) were the tenants previously in cultivation of these lands. As the petitioner insisted upon her vendor giving her vacant possession as a condition of her purchase of the lands, the latter negotiated with the first respondent and hig co-lessee, and as a result of an agreement the tenants were paid a sum of Rs. 6000, as consideration for their surrendering immediate posse...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Viswanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad300; 1957CriLJ519
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The point that arises for consideration here is whether the application for special leave from the order of acquittal for which a period of sixty days has been prescribed under Section 417(4), Criminal P.C., excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act if there is delay in filing such an application within the period of sixty days, The office has pointed out in its note that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would apply to the case and therefore Section 5 would not be available to the complainant when he is out of time.But Section 29(2) comes into operation only when the special law prescribes a period different from the period prescribed by the first schedule to the Limitation Act. In this case of special leave against acquittal the schedule to the Limitation Act does not prescribe any period at all. Such being the case only where there is difference between the period prescribed by this schedule and the period prescribed by the special law ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Bhat and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ399
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the conviction of the petitioners for an offence under Section 41 (1) read with Section 45 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947. The petitioners are the Joint Managers of the Joint Booking office at Kodailtaail. They dismissed an employee by name Venkatesa Bhat, who was examined as P.W. 2 in the case by an order dated 16th June 1953. Ex. P. 2. This was communicated to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. P.W. 2 appealed to the Commissioner against the order of these employers and the Additional Commissioner after holding an enquiry held by his order dated 25th September 1954 that the dismissal of P.W. 2 was not valid and also communicated the same to the office of the accused.Notwithstanding the decision of the Commissioner, the accused did not reinstate P.W. 2 and this prosecution is launched therefore for not complying with the order of the Commissioner. The Sub-Magistrate, without going into the question...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Subramanian Late Minor by G.S. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. A.S. Kalyanarama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad456
1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties of his grand father one Subramania Iyer. Subramania Iyer had two sons, the first defendant and Narayana Iyer, father of the plaintiff. Subramania Iyer died in 1945 leaving his widow the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff's claim is in respect of the properties left by Subramania Iyer which consists of properties which were allotted to the share of Subramania Iyer in a partition between Subramania Iyer, Kalyanarama Iyer and Narayana Iyer entered into under Ex. B-l dated 4-2-1935. The second defendant is the widow of Subramania Iyer and the lower court conceded to her a share under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act. The present appeal is confined to the finding as to the widow being entitled to a share in the partition under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act and as to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim to items 29 and 30 of the A schedule to the plaint. The prelimina...
Tag this Judgment!Antony Bernard Pinto and anr. Vs. Cecillia Fernandes Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad764; 1957CriLJ1420
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. This revision is filed by the defendants in a small cause suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to recover from the defendants the costs awarded by a Magistrate in his order under Sections 147 and 148, Cr. P. C. It would appear that the plaintiffs closed a sluice and caused obstruction to the defendant's alleged right to the flow of water through that sluice. That led to disputes between the parties and so proceedings were taken under Section 147, Cr. P. C.The order of the Magistrate was to restrain the plaintiffs from causing obstruction with regard to the defendants' right to the flow of the water. Further, the Magistrate, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 148 (3), Cr. P. C. also directed the plaintiffs to pay the costs of those proceedings to the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs instituted O.S. No. 41 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Mangalore, for restraining the'defendants from allowing the water into th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »