Chennai Court August 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.
S.R.V. Sivarama Prasad Bahadur, Rajah of Chillapalli Vs. Srinivasa Tra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad220; (1959)1MLJ116
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This appeal is by Sivarama Prasad Bahadur, the defendant in O. S. No. 84 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, against the decree and judgment in the suit. That was a suit filed by Srinivasa Traders, by family manager, P. S. Nara-yanan, for recovering the advance of Rs. 12,500, paid by them on 9-6-1951 to the appellant for the supply of 500 bags of free market Voyyur sugar at Rs. 177-8-0 per bag, plus sales-tax. Admittedly, the contract was never performed. We need not here consider by whose fault it fell through. The appellant was asked finally by the plaintiffs, by a letter dated 14-9-1951, Ex. A. 5, to pay back the advance of Rs. 12,500 with interest, as the contract stood cancelled. The appellant failed to do so. Then the suit was filed. In his written statement, the appellant contended that the plaintiffs had committed breach of the contract, and that he was entitled to get damages of Rs. 13,500 from them, and was entitled to retain ...
A.V.R.A. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ158
Rajagopalan, J.1. Six questions were referred for the determination of this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act. It may not be necessary to set out over again the relevant facts to answer some at least of the questions.2. The fifth of the questions ran:Whether the dividend of Rs. 7,500 received in the ' previous year' for 1945-46 assessment from the Beverley Estates, Ltd., Madras, is income exempt under Section 4(3)(viii) of the Income-Tax Act? The answer to this question is concluded by the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Gizdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1955]27ITR1(SC) . The question is answered in the negative and against the assessee.3. The sixth question ran:Whether the assessment in the assessment year 1947-48 of the gross income from the investment of shares in Avra, Ltd., before deduction of the Ceylon income-tax thereon, is valid and proper? A similar question with reference to the provisions of the Ceylon Income-Tax Ordinance...
P. Rajangam, Sub-inspector of Police and ors. Vs. State of Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad294; 1959CriLJ856
1. There are two connected Writ Petitions arising in connection with the death of one Arumugham in Police custody and filed by two Sub-Inspectors Natarajan and Rajangam and four Constables P. C. Nos. 113, 1331, 2118 and 2119 and from the alleged torture in Police custody of one Jayaraman filed by Sub-Inspector Rajangam and the aforesaid four Police constables.2. The facts leading to the institution of these Writ petitions are as follows: Sub-Inspector Natarajan at the material time was the Law and Order Sub-Inspector attached to J-3 Police Station. Sub-Inspector Rajangam was the Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the same Station. The four Police Constables were attached to the Crime Section of J-3 Station.The deceased Arumugliam aged about 23 was living at No. 51, Chinnaraju Pillai Thottam, Kodam-bakkam, within the limits of the J-3 Police Station, With his mother Challammal, his mother's paramour Vedachalam, that Vedachalam's wife Kamala and her four children. He was also...
Av. R. A. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR322(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Six questions were referred for the determination of this court under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act. It may not be necessary to set out over again the relevant facts to answer some at least of the questions. The fifth of the questions ran : 'Whether the dividend of Rs. 7,500 received in the previous year for 1945-46 assessment from the Beverley Estates Ltd., Madras, is exempt under section 4 (3) (viii) of the Income-tax Act.' The answer to this question is concluded by the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The question is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The sixth question ran : 'Whether the assessment in the assessment year 1947-48 of the gross income from the investment of shares in Avra Ltd., before deduction of the Ceylon income-tax thereon, is valid and proper.' A similar question with reference to the provisions of the Ceylon Income-tax Ordinance was considered by us in Ramas...
S. L. N. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1958
Reported in: [1959]35ITR641(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this court under section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act arose out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, carried on money-lending business. It had its head office at Karaikudi in India and a branch at Keddah in the Federated Malay States. On July 18, 1943, when Malaya was under enemy occupation, the assessee purchased two items of properties known as Jalan Baru. Though immoveable properties were acquired by purchase, it was common ground that they constituted part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee. The purchase price of 49,370 dollars was paid in Japanese currency which was in circulation then. Subsequent to that, the assessee spent in 1943 and 1944 two sums of 1,300 and 1,000 dollars for effecting improvements to the property. That expenditure also was in Japanese currency. Thus the total cost of acquisition was shown as 51,670 dollars in the books of the assessee. On September 29, 1951, ...
Govindaraju and anr. Vs. Lala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad183; (1958)IIMLJ515
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. The point lor determination is whether a civil revision petition which has been dismissed for default of appearance can be restored. So far as this High Court is concerned there are two lines of decision. 2. Byers, J. in Ramamurthi v. Meenakshi Sundarammal : AIR1945Mad103 following the decision of Burn, J. in Khizar Muhammad v. Abdul Razack, 1941 2 Mad LJ (NRC) 88 came to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction to restore to file civil revision petitions which have been dismissed for default of appearance mainly on the ground that O. IX R. 9 C. P. C. applies only to suits and not to civil revision petitions. Byers, J. also followed his own decision in Subbamma v. Venkata Reddi, : AIR1943Mad260(1) . This is one line of decisions. 3. Kunhi Raman, J. in C. M. P. No. 5421 of 11942 and Wadsworth, J. in C. M. P. No. 2962 of 1943 have taken the view, that this Court has powers to restore such revision petitions. 4. On account of the divergence of opinion the m...
Subramania Iyer Vs. T.D. Ramaswami Pillai Alias Ramakrishna Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad225; (1959)1MLJ178
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of O. S. No. 4 of 1946, on the file pf the Sub-Court. Tanjore. The appellant was a third party to the suit and his connection with the matter will presently be adverted to O. S. No. 4 of 1946 was a suit for partition by Ramaswami Pillai and Palanisami Pillai. respondents 1 and 2 herein, against Arumugam Pillai and others, respondent 3 to 10. According to the plaintiffs they were entitled to a half share in the suit properties, whereas defendants who are the members of the other branch would be entitled to the other half share.One of the items in the suit was item 14 in the plaint, a house. During the pendency of the suit there was a partition amongst the members of the defendants' family as a result of which item 14, namely, the house, fell to the share of the 4th defendant. He mortgaged that property under Ex. A. 1 on 17-4-1948 to the present appellant, Subra-mania Iyer. In the meanwhile on 21-12-1946 the partition sui...
Hajee Abdul Sather Sait Vs. C. Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ508
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Revision is against the order in H.R.A. No. 63 of 1955 on the file of the Court of Small Causes at Madras. The landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant who is the respondent to this Civil Revision Petition. His complaint was that there has been a wilful default in the payment of rent for the month of October, 1954. It is admitted that rent was not paid within the time stipulated under the agreement. Thereupon the landlord gave notice calling upon the tenant to pay the rent on 8th October, 1954. Thereafter a cheque was handed over to the landlord re-presenting the rent due. But that cheque was dishonoured. The landlord again re-presented the cheque. Then also it was dishonoured. Having no other alternative he filed an application for eviction of the tenant for wilful default in the payment of the rent. After the notice of the application reached the tenant he sent the rent for the month of October, ...
Velayutha Nair Vs. Vellachami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ590
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a Revision Petition filed at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit, S.C.S. No. 179 of 1956, has been dismissed by the District Munsiff of Srivilliputtur. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 297-9-9 as due on accounts. The plaintiff is the proprietor of a small hotel in Srivilliputtur. His case was that the defendant was taking meals and coffee in his hotel, from the beginning of January, 1954 and that he agreed to pay at the rate of Re. 1 for three meals and used to put the mark ' x ' in the accounts of the plaintiff to indicate the days on which he took meals and enter also the cost of light refreshments served to him in the accounts. The plaintiff also produced his accounts and stated that the sum claimed was due from the defendant. The defendant-admitted the supply of meals and coffee from the plaintiff's hotel, but pleaded payment and also bar of the suit claim by limitation. The learned District Munsiff disbelieved the case of dischar...