Chennai Court January 1958 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.
In Re: Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad300; (1958)IMLJ347
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These revisions have been taken up by the High Court. Accused 1 and 2 were charged by the police under Section 75 of the City Police Act. Accused 1 pleaded guilty and hag been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. Accused 2 did not plead guilty but stated that he was employed under accused 1 and. his salary for 28 days was due to him from accused 1. He was-beaten by accused 1 when he went and demanded wages. No evidence has been let in on the side of the prosecution in support of the charge under Section 75.2. So far as accused 1 is concerned in-view of his plea of guilty his conviction will have to be confirmed. So far as accused 2 i concerned, as he has not pleaded guilty and as-there is no evidence let in to prove that he also behaved in a disorderly manner in a public place he cannot be found guilty of the offence under Section 75. The conviction of accused 2 is therefore set aside.3. The learned Honorary Presidency Magistrate while sentencing accused 1 to a fi...
V. Kuppuswami and ors. Vs. Sri Subramaniaswami Devastahanam by Its Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ208
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. O.S. No. 41 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram,. is a suit by the trustees of the Subramaniaswami Devasthanam at Thiruvidakkazhi and a person named Muhammad Ali claiming to be a lessee from the devasthanam, for the issue of an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit properties.2. Thirty three persons were impleaded as defendants in the suit. On behalf of all of them the first defendant filed a written statement in which, among other things, the plea was taken that, only the revenue Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. On aist November, 1956 the defendants filed I .A. No. 522 of 1956 praying that O.S. No. 41 of 1956, be transferred to the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayuram. The transfer was asked for on the basis of Section 6-A which was introduced into Madras Act XXV of 1955 by Madras Act XIV of 1956. To that section I shall return presently. The learned Subordinate Jud...
S.V. Thiruvengadaswami Iyengar Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ285
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tanjore, for a declaration that he is the hereditary trustee of Sri Venkatachalapathiswami Temple in Serangulam Village. That application was dismissed. The petitioner then appealed to the Commissioner. On 25th September, 1956, the Commissioner passed an order, dismissing that appeal. That order is, so to speak, in two parts. What I may call the first part begins with the usual preamble that prefaces orders of the kind and ends with the following words : ' The appeal be and is hereby dismissed '. What I may call the second part of the order sets out the reasons for the direction given in the first part. I may mention here that what I called the second part purports to be and describes itself as an Annexure to what I called the first part. Normally, an Annexure would be an intergral part of the order in the same manner as an Appendix is part of a book and a Schedule i...
Ravamanickamma Vs. Ammani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ145
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 15th April, 1957, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram, made an order directing the petitioner inter alia, to clear off the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the order, failing which she would be evicted.2. A notice in Form III was also ordered to issue 'accordingly'. This notice directed the petitioner to tender the rent due to the landowner within 30 days from the date thereof and warned that if default were made an order would issue for her eviction. The petitioner alleges that on 1st May, 1957, she sent a money order to the landlord for the amount of the arrears of rent. This money order, contains a number of endorsements, some of which are difficult to read. One of the endorsements reads 'Not present'. Eventually it was returned to the remitter. The landholder then filed a petition for evicting the tenant and that was allowed. The tenant now seeks to canvas the correctness of that order.3. Though the order which the Revenue Divisio...
Commercial Credit Corporation (1943) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad561; (1958)IIMLJ316; [1958]9STC599(Mad); 1958 2 MLJ 316
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. These petitions are for the issue of writs of certiorari or other appropriate orders to quash certain assessments to sales tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. W. P. Nos. 500 and 671 of 1957 have been filed by the same petitioners calling in question the orders of assessment in relation to two financial years, the point raised however being the same.2. Broadly stated the petitioners have been assessed to sales tax by the appropriate tax authorities on the basis that they were dealers in automobiles, their assessable turnover being determined on the basis that the amounts realised by them were the price of the vehicles sold by them. The contention however urged in opposition to these assessments, and which is the foundation of these petitions, was that the transactions between them and their customers were not 'sales', but 'bailments by way of hire', and that transactions of this type could not on a proper construction of the pro...
M.C.T.M. Corporation, by Director M.C.T. Muthia Chettiar Vs. Income-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ344
P. Rajagopalan, J.1. M.CT.M. Corporation, Private, Ltd., the petitioner be fore us, was incorporated as a private limited liability company in Pudukottai State The Income-tax Officer of Pudukottai assessed the petitioner for the assessment year 1951-52 on the basis of a total income of Rs. 3,66,260 and issued a demand for the appropriate tax due. This order was passed on 31st March, 1954. The validity of this assessment or demand is not now in controversy. Subsequently by a communication dated 13th March, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner under Section 35 of the Act to show cause why his assessment should not be rectified by the addition of a further sum of Rs. 15,104-2-0 to the tax as ascertained by order dated 31st March, 1954, the addition being stated to be interest chargeable under Section 18-A (8) of the Income-tax Act, which by mistake had been omitted to be included. The petitioner objected to the proposed rectification on several grounds to the detai...
K.M.P.R. Kumarappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. P.R.A.S. Andiappa Chettiar (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ395
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Kumarappa Chettiar and another the decree-holders in O.S. No. 902 of 1942 on the file of the Chief Court, Pudukottai, in E.A. No. 1306 of 1953, in E.P. No. 560 of 1952. That E. A. was an application under Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act by the respondent judgment-debtor, Andiappa Chettiar, for staying the execution proceedings until his application under Section 19 of the Madras Act IV of 1938, which had already been filed, was disposed of. The properties were being brought to sale for the decree amount as scaled down under the Pudukottai Agriculturists Relief Regulation (before the merger of that State with the Madras State). The appellants had contended that, as the judgment-debtor had got his debt scaled down under the Pudukottai Agriculturists Relief Regulation, he could not again claim a further scaling down of his decree debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act and get a double benefit. The lower Court ov...
Govindarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. S.S. Naidu Alias Soundararajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ148
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 214 of 1952, confirming the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in O.S. No. 212 of 195O2. The plaintiff Soundararajulu Naidu is a returned F.M.S. emigrant residing in Tanjore Tank Road, Tiruchirapalli. The first defendant Rajagopal Naidu who is well employed, is the son of the plaintiff. The second defendant Muthukrishnammal is the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff emigrated to Malaya and was employed in a rubber estate at Kualapilah as Chief Clerk and Assistant Manager. He was in Malaya from 1912 and retired in 1948 on a pay of Rs. 600. It is stated that with the funds of the plaintiff the suit lands were purchased under Exhibit B-2 dated 7th March, 1938 for Rs. 3,505. The properties belonged to the estate of late Nangavaram Subbaramier and the estate was administered by the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, through Rec...
M. C. T. M. Corporation Private Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Pudukotta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: [1958]33ITR573(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - M.C.T.M. Corporation Private Ltd., the petitioner before us, was incorporated as a private limited liability company in Pudukottai State. The Income-tax Officer of Pudukottai assessed the petitioner for the assessment year 1951-52 on the basis of a total income of Rs. 3,66,260 and issued a demand for the appropriate tax due. This order was passed on March 31, 1954. The validity of this assessment or demand is not now in controversy. Subsequently by a communication dated March 13, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued notice to the petitioner under section 35 of the Act to show cause why this assessment should not be rectified by the addition of a further sum of Rs. 15,104-2-0 to the tax as ascertained by order dated March 31, 1954, the addition being stated to be interest chargeable under section 18A(8) of the Income-tax Act, which by mistake had been omitted to be included. The petitioner objected to the proposed rectification on several grounds to the details ...
Kathaperumal Pillai Vs. Rajendra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad409; (1958)2MLJ183
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one-Kathaperumal Piliai, the plaintiff in S. C. S, No. 469 of 1956, on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvarur, for revising the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif granting a decree only against the first defendant and dismissing the suit as regards defendants 2 and 3, his brothers.2. The facts were briefly these. Kathaperumal, the petitioner, advanced Its. 240 on 20-8-1954, to the first defendant, the manager of the joint family consisting of three brothers and mother, for the marriage of the first defendant, who had reached the age of 25, and had decided to marry and had decided further that he should marry in the self-respect fashion without the usual religious ceremonies.As the sum was not repaid, the petitioner sued all the three brothers, the three defendants for recovering Rs. 266-3-0 the amount lent with interest thereon. Defendants 2 and 3 contested the suit, stating that they were not bound to pay the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »