Chennai Court November 1957 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.
Sunku Munuswami Chettiar Vs. Sunku Narasimhalu Chettiar (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ233
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 93 of 1950.2. The facts are short and practically undisputed. The defendant along with others was running a cinema business as exhibitors and distributors. Subsequently the members who constituted this company got separated. Thereafter, the defendant and three others, who are not parties here, took over the assets and constituted themselves into a partnership at will and their deed of partnership is Exhibit B-1. The object of the partnership was to exploit the cinema house called Saraswathi Theatres and Lakshmi Talkies and two films, namely, Sivalinga Sakthi and Manimekhalai. The partnership capital was Rs. 1,11,460-10-0. Each partner had to contribute Rs. 27,865-2-6. This partnership at will after reciting the terms on which the business was to be run and including a provision for the management concludes that during the time this company is conducted, if any of the par...
Muni Ammal Vs. Govindarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad393; (1958)1MLJ96
ORDERSubrahmanyam, J.1. The first defendant-petitioner relied on a will to support her case. The will is in the possession of D.W. 1 who describes himself as a notaire in French territory. He lives in French territory. He states that, under the French Law, he is under an obligation not to produce the will in any Court in the Indian Union. In the witness-box he states that he would not produce the will. The first defendant-petitioner produces an authenticated copy of the will. It is not denied that, if the original will were lost, the copy can be used to prove the existence and contents of the original will, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned District Munsif held that, because the original will is in the possession of the notaire, the copy could not be received in evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The order of the learned District Munsif cannot be supported. Either the notaire is a person who can legally be compelled by the District Munsif to produce t...
Thangalakshmi Ammal Vs. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ184
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by one Thangalakshmi Ammal for setting aside the order of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing her Writ Petition No. 1018 of 1956.2. The facts are briefly these : The appellant had stood for election from Ward No. 13 of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality, a double member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the scheduled castes. The appellant and respondents 1 to 7 were the eight candidates who stood for the election held on 10th October, 1955. Respondents 2, 3 and 7 alone were eligible to stand for the reserved seat. Respondent 3, who obtained 680 votes, was declared elected to the reserved seat. The appellant, who got 653 votes, as against the 2nd respondent who polled 652, was declared elected to the non-reserved seat on the strength of his having secured one more vote. The 1st respondent obtained only 616 votes. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.P. No. 138 of 1956 to set aside the election of both the candidates who had been d...
Muthuswami Raja Vs. Ramu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad461; (1958)1MLJ302
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram declining to allow the petitioner to amend his written statement. The suit was by the defendant's daughter-in-law, the widow of his deceased son, for partition and separate possession of the properties which belonged to the joint family consisting of the petitioner, the plaintiff's husband and his brothers. The petitioner in his written statement gave a list of the properties which were his separate properties and admitted by implication the plaintiff's right to partition and separate possession in respect of the other properties in the plaint schedule. By the application for amendment which has given rise to this revision petition, the petitioner prayed that one other item be added to the properties which he claimed as his separate property. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that to allow the amendment would be to permit the petitioner to go back on his admission that ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. C.S. Pachiappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad295; 1958CriLJ776
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These are revisions against the order passed by the Hard Presidency Magistrate under the following circumstances. The accused is prosecuted for an offence under Section 409, IPC The prosecution in compliance with the provisions of Section 173, Cr.PC furnished in the first instance certain documents, on which they proposed to rely. On the basis of those documents, after questioning the accused, charges were framed.Subsequently the prosecution felt the need to furnish some more documents on which they were going to rely. They supplied those documents to the accused, but the accused refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application before the Court asking the Court to direct the accused to receive these documents. The application is an extraordinary one. I can understand an application by the prosecution for permission to tender those documents; but an application to compel the accused to receive those documents is something which I have...
Meenal Vs. Subbiah Naidu, Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ162
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ramanathapuram in Calendar Case No. 51 of 1957 on his file. The case was taken on file on a private complaint preferred by the appellant herein. The appellant is the wife of one Tirukkana Thevar, to arrest whom the police went on 10th March, 1957 at about 4 a.m. The police went with a posse of constables as Tirukkana Thevar was wanted in connection with a dacoity case. The appellant is said to have been sleeping in the pial of the house. The accused who was the Sub-Inspector went along with others, woke her up and asked her where her husband was. She told the Sub-Inspector that he had gone to Paramakudi. The accused was not satisfied with the answer and charged her with hiding her husband in the house. She was asked to open the door. The accused went inside the house and according to the allegations in the complaint, broke the vessels,--mud pots and chattis--inside the house and further questione...
Artisan Press Ltd., (In Liquidation) by Its Liquidators, R. Natarajan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad507; (1958)1MLJ416
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. Three points have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act impugned in this writ petition : (1) that the Appellate Tribunal was functus officio on the date when the proceedings for the levy of penalty were initiated; (2) that there was no identity between the party against whom the penalty was levied and the assessee who submitted the incorrect return in which the correct particulars of income were not disclosed; and (3) that the order of the Tribunal levying the penalty did not satisfy the requirements of a judicial order.2. The order impugned was one by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000 on the petitioner Messrs. Artisan Press, Limited. The concerned assessment year was 1953-54 and the Company had preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal feeling itself ...
Artisan Press Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR670(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - Three points have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal imposing a penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act impugned in this writ petition : (1) that the Appellate Tribunal was functus officio on the date when the proceedings for the levy of penalty were initiated; (2) that there was no identity between the party against whom the penalty was levied and the assessee who submitted the incorrect return in which the correct particulars of income were not disclosed; and (3) that the order of the Tribunal levying the penalty did not satisfy the requirements of a judicial order.The order impugned was one by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner Messrs. Artisan Press Limited. The concerned assessment year was 1953-54 and the company had preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal felling itself aggrieve...
Haji Abdul Gaffoor Sahib and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad314; (1958)IMLJ225; [1958]9STC208(Mad)
Rajagopalan, Offg. C.J. 1.The petitioner was assessed to sales tax on his turnover in hides and skins for the assessment year 1950-51. The liability still in dispute before the Appellate Tribunal was with reference to the following items, which the department claimed represented the sales of hides and skins within the State of Madras. Sales under contracts entered into with :-- (1) Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Ltd. Rs. 1,80,925 2 10(2) Madras Hides and Skins Exporters Ltd. Rs. 1,19,846 10 2(3) Rallis (India) Ltd. ... Rs. 2,05,101 1 0(4) South Indian Export Co., Ltd. ... Rs. 31,035 6 1(5) Anwar and Co. ... Rs. 12,231 13 5(6) Best and Co., Ltd. ... Rs. 10,432 7 11(7) Haji Abdul Wahab and Sons ... Rs. 6,68,500 4 8(8) Srinivas and Co. ... Rs. 24,582 7 42. The Tribunal took the view that all these items of turnover were liable to be taxed. The contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee were (1) that all these items represented sales outside India and that the companies listed ...
Board of Revenue Vs. T.M. Madalai Nadar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad254; (1958)1MLJ88
P. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question which has been referred to this Court for decision is:Whether the document dated 12th May, 1953, is correctly classified as dissolution of partnership and conveyance, chargeable with stamp duty under Articles 39(b) and 19 of Schedule I-A ;of the Stamp Act, respectively. 2. Two persons Rajakanni Nadar and Mathalai Nadar were carrying on business in partnership under the name of T.M.M. Mathalai Nadar and Company. The partnership was started under a deed, dated 16th of August, 1944. The document, the stamp in regard to which is now in question, purports to be a deed of dissolution, dated 12th May, 1953. It recites the fact that these two partners, Mathalai Nadar and Rajakanni Nadar, were carrying on business in partnership that there had been a partition in the family of Rajakanni Nadar, that is between himself and his sons', on the 8th of April 1953, that they were entering into this dissolution, and that he was consequently dissolving the partne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »