Chennai Court October 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 38 results (0.017 seconds)M. Paul Verghese and Co., Ltd. Vs. G.A. Dhanaliwala
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ288
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff-respondent in City Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1954 before Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. That appeal was from the judgment and decree of the learned Principal City Civil Judge in a suit (O.S. No. 79 of 1951) instituted by the plaintiff (appellant here) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,650-15-10 and costs. The learned Judge (Basheer Ahmed Syeed, J.) remanded the suit to the lower Court for an enquiry into the actual amount that had been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, and in order to determine what exactly would be the amount that plaintiff would be entitled to claim a refund of excess rent paid under Section 6(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XXV of 1949, as amended upto date.2. The facts are simple, and may be stated as follows. The plaintiff (appellant here) was the tenant under the defendant with regard to a portion of a certain premises in Madras City from 10th March, 1947, on a monthly ren...
Tag this Judgment!Vadivelu Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras by Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ140
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal from the Judgment of Ramaswami, J., arises out of a suit filed on the Original Side of this Court, C.S. No. 25 of 1951, by one Vadi-velu Mudaliar, the appellant beore us, in forma pauperis for a declaration of his title to the suit land and for an injunction restraining the State of Madras from evicting the plaintiff from the suit land. The land in suit is 19 cents in extent and situated in Thiagarayanagar in the City of Madras. It admittedly formed part of the zamin village of Mambalam. The plaintiff claimed that in consideration of Rs. 50 paid by the plaintiff to the Zamindarini of Mambalam the latter granted a patta to him on 17th October, 1934, in respect of the suit land. Admittedly he has been in possession of the suit land from the date of the patta and he has put up a structure thereon. On 9th May, 1949, the Tahsildar of Madras called upon the plaintiff to vacate the suit land. In spite of the plaintiff's objection the Collector of Madras passed a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ231
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the. State of Madras (represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai) who was the defendant in the Court below. The facts are simple. Kovilangundu, a hamlet of Koothalur village, was. notified and taken over by Government under Act (XXVI of 1948), (The Madras. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act) in September, 1949. The plaintiff in the lower Court was a perpetual cowledar of this village, by virtue of a perpetual cowle or lease obtained by his paternal grand-father from Rani Kathama Nachiar of Sivaganga on 14th May, 1874, on an annual cash rent of Rs. 164-4-0' besides cesses. But the ancestors of the plaintiff reclaimed the waste lands of this hamlet and brought them under cultivation, and he and his successors were granted Patta No. 122 by the Zamindar. The contentions of the plaintiff in suit were these : (1) the action of the Government in applying the provisions of Act (XXVI of 1948] to Kovilangundu is il...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nanjappan
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ275
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The 1st accused has been convicted under Section 26 of the Madras Forest Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. Another accused also was charged as he was alleged to be the master of the 1st accused. The alleged master has been acquitted.2. According to the prosecution, the 1st accused is said to have removed 100 cartloads of silt from the tank bed which is said to be poromboke land. The learned Judge finds that according to the evidence what is proved is that the 1st accused removed one cart load, because that is what the witnesses saw on the particular day. The question is whether the removal of one cart load of silt is an offence under Section 26.3. At the outset it must be pointed out to the Magistrate that Section 26 does not create and offence. It only enables the Government to frame rules. There is no offence as such under Section 26. If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had looked into the Section, he would have realised this. Apparently what the accused...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vellayan Vs. the District Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ434
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Writ Petition No. 553 of 1959, filed by one Vellayan who is the appellant before us for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the District Forest Officer, Ramanathapuram Division at Sekkalai, Karaikudi, not to take any further steps to confirm the sale in favour of the second respondent, S.R. Sundaraja Iyengar. The sale was of the right to quarry minerals in the Poolankurichi, Tirupathur Range in the Sivaganga Estate forests. The auction took place on the 29th May, 1959, at the District Forest Office next to Sekkalai Police Station, Karaikudi. The appellant and the second respondent were among the bidders at the auction. There was a notification published in the local District Gazette setting out the general and special conditions relating to the conduct of the auction sale. The decision of this appeal depends upon the construction of one of such conditions.2. There is no dispute as to wha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sri Rama Vilas Service (Private ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad224; [1960]38ITR25(Mad)
(1) The question referred to this court under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act ran:"Whether the buses and lorries are plant and machinery "installed" and whether development rebate under S. 10(2)(vi)(b) of the Income-tax Act is allowable on buses and lorries."(2) That question was answered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal, and the question of law was referred to this Court at the instance of the department.(3) Section 10(2)(vi)(a) provides for what is called an extra initial depreciation, and that applies to machinery or plant, being new, which has been installed after the 31st day of March 1948. Section 10(2)(vi)(b) provides for a further relief to the tax-payer, and what was called a development rebate has been granted in the case of new machinery or plant installed after 31-3-1954. The word "plant" itself was given a statutory definition in S. 10(5) of the Act; "Plant" includes vehicles, books, scientific apparatus and surgical equipment purchased for the purpose of t...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Lakshmiah Alias N. Lakshmiah Chettiar Vs. Hajee S. Abdul Azeez, P ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ137
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the deendant in O.S. No. 721 of 1947 on the file of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant was also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 999 of 1947 on the file of the same learned Judge. The matter came up in appeal in C.C.C.A. No. 34 of 1952 before Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., and the learned Judge confirmed the findings of the City Civil Court, in both the suits, and dismissed the appeal of the present appellant (defendant) with costs. From that decision of the learned Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal is before us.2. The facts are quite simple. On 19th March, 1947, the appellant entered into a a contract with the plaintiff in O.S. No.721 of 1947 for the purchase of 150 cotton parachutes at Rs. 24-8-0 per parachute. This is evidenced by the document, Exhibit A-I (page 15 of the printed papers) and there can be no doubt that it is a completed contract of sale between the parties, the purchaser (the appellant) to...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundarathu Odayar Vs. Kalyanasundarathu Odayar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ225
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the first respondent in the Court below in a petition for scaling down a debt under Section 19-A of Madras Act TV of 1938. The petitioner in the lower Court has filed a memorandum of cross-objections, which has also to be dealt with.2. The facts are these. The petitioner in the lower Court and the sons of his brother, Sivasankara, Vayyapuri and Sivagnana constituted a Hindu joint family. On behalf of this family, and during the course of his management, Sivasankara borrowed Rs. 10,000 in March, 1928, executing a promissory note therefor. Several payments were made towards this note, and, for the balance due under it and comprising a fresh loan of Rs. 800 or so taken, Sivasankara executed another note in February, 1931, for Rs. 4,800 and odd. In June, 1933, this was renewed by a promissory note for Rs. 10,000 and odd executed by Sivasankara and the petitioner-in the lower Court. This not merely included the principal and interest under ...
Tag this Judgment!Logambal Achi Vs. Muthia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ326
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are related appeals from the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, in O.S. No. 65 of 1943, which was a suit remanded by this Court for recovery of the balance of principal and interest due upon a promissory note executed on 1st November, 1937. In A.S. No. 336 of 1956, the appellant is the second plaintiff in the suit. In A.S. No. 473 of 1956, the appellants are defendants 2 to 5 in the Court below.2. The point raised in the main appeal (A.S. No. 336 of 1956) is a simple one; The plaintiff originally instituted the suit after reduction of the debt in accordance with the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938, as it then stood. There was a decree and an appeal to this Court, and in this Court the decree and judgment of the lower Court were set aside, and the suit was remanded for disposal in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has finally awarded costs to the plaintiffs under Section 18(1) of Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Ammalu Ammal Vs. N. Samalam Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ158
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner in the lower Court in an application under Section 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for the scaling down of a mortgage debt. The main point involved in this appeal is whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramaswami Ayangar v. Kailasa Thevar : [1951]2SCR292 , enunciated a general principle which is applicable to facts like those of the instant case, or whether that decision is distinguishable both with reference to its facts, and upon the ground that it related to a mortgage decree, and not to a mortgage debt.2. The facts necessary for an appreciation of the argument now presented are as follows : A certain Nataraja Iyer and Venkatarama Ayyar were brothers, of whom Venkatarama Ayyar had four sons and a daughter, Ammalu Ammal, the petitioner in the lower Court and the present appellant. Of these four sons of Venkatarama Ayyar, three are now alive, and one of them Samalam Ayyar was given away in adoption to Nataraja...
Tag this Judgment!