Chennai Court March 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.
Union of India (Uoi), Owing the Southern Rly. by Its General Manager V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad117; (1958)IIMLJ419
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Rajagopala Ayyangar J., dismissing the application made by the appellant before us to dispauper the respondent who was the plaintiff in C. S. No. 130 of 1934. Leave was granted to the respondent to institute the suit as a pauper on the 16th March 1954 and this was after notice to the defendant who is the appellant before us.The present application was taken by the defendant subsequently. The learned Judge found that it had not been proved that the value of the property of which the plaintiff was possessed was sufficient to pay the court-fee. He therefore dismissed the application. Hence this appeal by the defendant.2. In our opinion this appeal must be dismissed on the short ground that it is not maintainable. The order under appeal is not a judgment, within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to permit this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the ruling in Baba Sah v. Purushotama Sah, ILR (192...
Estates and Agency Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR590(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The two questions that were referred to this court for determination were :1. Whether the words 'income arising in the taxable territories' in section 4A (c) of the Income-tax Act would also include agricultural income arising in the taxable territories ?2. Whether the assessee was rightly assessed as a resident within the meaning of section 4A(c) The answer to the second of these questions depends on that to the first and what decides the first questions is the interpretation of the word 'income' in section 4A(C), the relevant portion of which runs :'A company is resident in the taxable territories in any year..... if its income arising in the taxable territories in that year exceeds his income arising without the taxable territories in that year, account not being taken in either case of income chargeable under the head capital gains.'The department authorities, and the Tribunal concurring with them, held that the assessee was resident and ordinary resident in India...
Ramayya Padayachi Vs. Ambal Bagyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ593
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. We agree with the learned Judge that even assuming that all the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant were true, there is only proof of adulterous conduct on the part of the wife but there is no evidence which can support the finding that she is the concubine of any other man. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that if a wife lived continuously in adultery with another man, then she would be his concubine. This would not be so unless she has left her husband's house and has been living with her paramour practically as with a husband. The, distinction is brought out very clearly, if we may say so with respect, in a recent decision of the Andhra High Court, in Subbaramiah v. Venkata Subbamma (1956) An. W.R. 428. We are of opiriion that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to enable the Court to give a rinding that the wife is a concubine of another man. As divorce was sought only on this ground the petition was rightly dismissed by Basheer Ah...
Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd. Vs. S.R. Rangachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad119
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 55 of 1951, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai and is confined to the portion of the claim which was disallowed by the learned Judge. The plaintiff is the Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd., Tanjore. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 12,553-14-6 duo from the first defendant on dealings up to 4th December, 1950. The first defendant was a constituent of the Madurai branch of the plaintiff bank.He had a current account with that branch and he was also granted facilities for discounting bills. The amount claimed is the balance alleged to be due from the first defendant in respect of his current account which was overdrawn. The first defendant had executed a registered memorandum of equitable mortgage on 30th October, 1957, by deposit of title deeds of some of his properties in Madurai for securing overdraft accommodation to the extent of Rs. 15000.The second defendant was the manager of the Madurai branch during...
In Re: Veerappa Giramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad405; 1959CriLJ1092; (1959)2MLJ449
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The accused pleaded guilty before the Seventh Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 49-A(3) of the Madras City Police Act in that he received bets on New York Cotton prices on 22-1-1958 at 7-30 p.m. at Muthiah Mudali Garden, Ice House.2. The prosecution had cited four witnesses to speak to these facts and the seizure of Rs. 4 cash, 12 betting slips bearing the letter M, a small pencil and a carbon slip.3. The accused, apparently realising the overwhelming evidence against him, has pleaded guilty after the charge was explained to him, and he having done so, only the extent and legality of the sentence alone is open for consideration.4. The point taken that the accused was not furnished with copies of statements and documents in police investigation under Section 173 (4), Cri. P.C. is without any substance.5. Under the amended Code, copies have to he prepared and furnished to accused in all cases where there was police investigation under Chapter IV and ...
M.R. Nataraja Naicker Vs. M. Kamalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ417
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This revision petition raises the question as to the correctness of the decision on a preliminary issue by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (XV of 1882). The tenant is the petitioner. By a registered document Exhibit P-1, dated 12th August, 194.9, the respondent, landlord granted a lease of immovable property to the petitioner with a condition annexed that if the tenant (petitioner) defaulted in payment of rent for two consecutive months or sub-let or assigned the premises to any person the lessor would be entitled to terminate the tenancy. On 27th April, 1951, by Exhibit D-1 the tenant granted a lease for ten years to one Rudra Pillai. There is a dispute as to whether this lease comprised the superstructure only or the land as well. But for the purpose of the present controversy it is assumed that the lease covered the land as well. Founding on the ground that Exhibit D-1 amounted to a brea...
In Re: T.A. Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1412; (1958)IIMLJ294
Rajagopalan, J.1. The Full Bench had declared the law that Section 350, Criminal P. C, did not apply to the Special Judge, before the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2 of 1958, came into force. Under the provisions of that Act, the Central Act 46 of 1952 has Deen amended and Section 350, Criminal P.C. as amended was made applicable to Special Courts. In view of this amendment, the opinion of the Full Bench expressed in this case has been superseded by legislation and hence we are not reporting the judgment.Editor).V. T. Rangaswami Aiyangar for P. N. Menon, for Appellant; Advocate General and Public Prosecutor, for the State....
N. Santhanam Iyer Alias Santhanarama Iyer Vs. Somasundara Vanniar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ400
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a revision filed by the landlord against an order passed by the Rent Tribunal and District Munsif in F.R.C.M.A. No. 36 of 1957 on his file. The respondent herein filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent. It was numbered as F.R. No. 438 of 1957. The petitioner herein filed a counter on 22nd May, 1957, in which he admitted the respondent to be a tenant and pleaded an agreement for higher rent. When the petition came on for hearing on 29th May, 1957, it was dismissed for non-appearance. The suit was then restored and renumbered as F.R. No. 457 of 1957, and it was posted to some date in June, 1957. The case was adjourned at the request of both the parties to 9th July, 1957. On 9th July, 1957, the respondent herein was examined as P.W. 1. The trial was adjourned to 30th July, 1957. On 30th July, 1957, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined, and the respondent is said to have closed his case. Then the petitioner herein filed an additional coun...
In Re: Peerdan Juharmal Bank (In Liquidation) by Joint Official Liquid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ167
ORDER1. After the Peerdan Juharmal Bank, Limited, was ordered to be wound up^ the Joint Liquidator preferred Application No. 4394 of 1952, under Section 235 of the Indian Companies Act (Act VII of 1913), in which charges of misfeasance among others were levelled against the respondents who had been directors of the Bank. One of them was A.V. Gopalachariar, who was impleaded as the sixth respondent in that application. Ramaswami Goundar, J., dismissed the application against the sixth respondent as well as against Respondents 5 and 7. The Joint Liquidators appealed against these directions : O.S.A. No. 142 of 1954 : Gopalachariar was impleaded as the third respondent in that appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Gopalachariar died on 14th September, 1957. On 3rd January, 1958, the appellants preferred G.M.P. No. 347 of 1958 to set aside the abatement of the appeal as against Gopalachariar and. G.M.P. No. 348 of 1958 to bring on record the legal representative of Gopalachariar. A fu...
Thiruvengada Mudaliar Vs. T. Narayana Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad141
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Two points were urged before us by Mr. G. R. Jagadesan, learned counsel for the appellant who was the second defendant in a suit brought by the first respondent in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, O. S. No. 96 of 1948. That suit was filed in a representative character on behalf of a body of creditors of four persons who were members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff himself was the decree-holder in O. S. No. 42 of 1937. There were several other decrees in favour of the other creditors. Two of the debtors were adjudged as insolvents in 1936. When attempts were made by certain of the decree-holders to bring certain properties to sale in execution of that decree it was found that the properties had been sold in execution of a decree in another suit, O. S. No. 67 of 1934, which had been obtained by one Narayana Nadar against the same debtors. That sale was alleged to have taken place on 25-4-1947, and the same was confirmed in June 1947. The plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »