Chennai Court November 1959 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.
Soundararajan and Co. Ltd. Vs. K.P.A.T. Annamalai Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad480
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras in a suit for refund of advances in respect of the two mercantile contracts.(2) Practically, the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff entered into two contracts with the defendant-company on dated 3-8-1951 and 10-8-1951 (Exs. A-1 and A-2) for the purchase of a certain quantity of Australian Self Raising Flour at specified rates and weight, to be shipped by 'S. S. Devanha' expected to sail from Australia during August--September. This contract between the parties was subject to certain conditions, to which we shall make reference a little later, which protected the defendant--company in the event of unforeseen circumstances necessitating delays in shipping, or supplies at a later date.The subsequent facts are that the 'S. S. Devanha' was damaged by fire, and could not sail as expected. The defendant--company then sent a letter ...
Sorabji Hormusha Joshi and Co. Vs. V.M. Ismail and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad520
Ramaswami, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of our learned brother Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, in C. C. C. A. No. 9 of 1953, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned City Civil Judge, Madras, in O. S. No. 126 of 1949.(2) The defendants Sorabji Hormusha Joshi and Co., (referred to in this judgment as Joshi and Co.) are carrying on business in Bombay, from 1946. They import dried sheep skins from East Africa. The plaintiffs, Ismail and Ibrahim, are brothers doing business in hides and skins in Vaniyambadi in North Arcot District. The second plaintiff Ibrahim stays and does business in Bombay. The plaintiffs had two transactions with the defendants and of which we are concerned only with the transaction of October 1947. In October 1947 the second plaintiff met the defendants and learnt from them that a consignment of dried sheep skins from East Africa had arrived in Madras and was lying in the Madras harbour.The second plaintiff looked into the import invoic...
T.A. Mahomed Usman Vs. State of Madras Represented by Secy. to Govt. o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Mad129; (1960)IIMLJ290
1. These petitions and the writ appeals have been heard together since they involved the decision of a common question of law as to the validity of certain rules framed under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (Central Act 57 of 1955) and in particular of para 3 of schedule III thereof. The orders whose validity and legality are challenged in these tour proceedings are in common form and have been passed on the directions of the Central Government either by the Collector of the District (W. P. Nos. 498 of 1958 and 795 of 1958) or by the Commissioner of Police, Madras (W. A. No. 97 of 1958 and 48 of 1959), requiring the petitioner or the appellant as the case may be, described as the holder of a Pakistan passport, who was unauthorisedly overstaying in India, to leave India within a month of the receipt of the notice, with a warning that on failure to comply, he would be prosecuted and deported under the provisions of the Foreigners Act of 1948.2. It is common ground that the basis upon wh...
V. Venkataraman Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad305; [1960]38ITR1(Mad)
(1) The following question has been referred under S. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, estate duty was correctly levied on the agricultural lands situate in the Madras State.'' The fact relating to this reference are as follows: One V. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, who owned in his individual capacity agricultural lands in the Madras State, houses and other assets, died on 17-4-1955. The applicant, who is an accountable person within the meaning of S. 2(12-A) of the Estate Duty Act 1953, submitted the account of the estate left by the deceased to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, who determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 1,43,990. That sum included a sum of Rs. 67,520, the value of the agricultural lands owned by the deceased.The applicant claimed that there could be no levy of estate duty on the value of the agricultural lands, and that he was entitled to a rebate of estate duty on the value thereof from ...
Southern Transports, Periakulam Vs. Kodaikanal Motor Union (Private) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad365
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. in W. P. No. 946 of 1958 filed by the appellant, Messrs. Southern Transports, Periakulam, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of prohibition, directing the Regional Transport Authority, Madurai, the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirapalli, and the Regional Transport Authority of Ramanathapuram at Madurai to forbear from proceeding further in the matter of granting the variation to the first respondent, Kodaikanal Motor Union Ltd., Madurai, in regard to his bus MDM. 6458 operating on the route Madurai to Tirupathur as Madurai to Thirumayam, Balakrishna Aiyar J. dismissed the petition, and hence this appeal.(2) It is sufficient to mention the following material facts which led up to the filing of writ petition. In 1956, the Kodaikanal Motor Union applied for a variation of the permit which it already held in respect of one of its buses on the route Madurai to Tirupattur so that it cou...
N.R. Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. Renuka Devi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad298; (1960)IIMLJ318
(1) The first defendant appeals from the judgment and decree dated 30-11-1955 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O. S. No. 56 of 1955.(2) The first defendant had mortgaged his house, in favour of one Valliyappa Chettiar. He instituted O. S. No. 358 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Town, to enforce the mortgage. A decree for sale was passed in that suit. In execution of the decree the property was sold in court auction on 5-3-1951. The plaintiff, who had been impleaded in that suit as puisne mortgagee purchased the property at the auction and duly obtained a sale certificate. She applied for delivery of the property in E. A. No. 194 of 1954. At that time a portion of the house was in the occupation of the appellant and the other portions were in the occupation of three tenants.The plaintiff's witnesses say that the three tenants attorned to the plaintiff, that the first defendant vacated the portion which was in his occupation, that the plaintiff le...
V. Venkataraman Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1959
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ385
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 64(1) of the Estates Duty Act, 1953:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, estate duty was correctly levied on the agricultural lands situated in the Madras State.The facts relating to this reference are as follows : One V. Vaidynatha Ayyar who owned in his individual capacity agricultural lands in the Madras State houses and other assets died on 17th April, 1955. The applicant, who is an accountable person within the meaning of Section 2(12-A) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 submitted the account of the estate left by the deceased to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, who determined the principal value of the estate at Rs 1,43,990. That sum included a sum of Rs. 67,520 the value of the agricultural lands owned by the deceased. The applicant claimed that there could be no levy of estate duty on the value of the agricultural lands, and that he was entitled to a rebate of estate d...
Mir Mohamad Ali, Bus Owner, Vellore Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad476
ORDER(1) The first of the two questions referred to this Court under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act was,'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of any portion of payment of interest of Rs. 12541 in the first year, Rs. 20851 in the second year and Rs. 40302 in the third year on the amounts borrowed by the assessee for the purpose of his business is correct?' That actually the assessee paid Rs. 12541 in the first year (the account year ending with 31-3-1949), Rs. 20851 in the second year and Rs. 40302 in the third year towards interest on the loans he had contracted was apparently accepted by the Tribunal. What was ultimately allowed by the Tribunal as deduction was Rs. 8000 in the first year, Rs. 14,000 in the second year and Rs. 13,000 in the third year. The question is whether the claim of the assessee should have been allowed in full.(2) The accounts of the assessee were rejected as unreliable, and the gross income of the assessee had to be estima...
State of Madras and anr. Vs. B.G.P. Lorry Service and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad336; (1960)ILLJ342Mad
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. in W.P. No. 519 of 1955 () filed in thefollowing circumstances: One B. Ramalingam a workman employed as a cleaner by B.G.P. Lorry Service, Walltax Road, Madras received a fatal injury by accident on 15-5-1954, in the course of his employment. He actually died on 19th May 1954. His widow, Papathi Ammal filed an application in the prescribed form before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, praying for the award of compensation. The heading of the form itself is "Application for order to deposit of compensation;" The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras overruling the objections raised by the employer, held that a compensation of Rs. 1200 was payable. He ordered that the employer should deposit the compensation of Rs. 1200 together with costs amounting to Rs. 14.The employee did not deposit the amount with the Commissioner, as directed. He is said to have paid that amount in person to the w...
S. Sankaranarayana Iyer and ors. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad294
Anantanarayanan, J. (1) A. S. No. 462 of 1955 is an appeal by defendants 1 to 6 in the Court below in a suit instituted in forma pauperis by a Hindu widow for recovery of arrears of maintenance, and for enhancement of maintenance and raiment allowance. A. S. No. 492 of 1955 is an appeal by the widow upon grounds that she ought to have been granted enhanced maintenance and raiment allowance as prayed for. In this appeal there is a memorandum of cross-objections filed by respondents 5 and 6, particularly objecting, inter alia, to any enhancement of maintenance from the date of demand by the widow (15-12-1945), as decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli. (2) The background of facts may be briefly set forth as follows: One Sri V. Subbuswami Aiyar was a vakil of Vannarpet who had extensive properties, and he died in 1905 leaving a very rich estate. His four sons were Subramania Aiyar, Srinviasa Aiyar, Ramachandra Aiyar and Sankaranarayana Aiyar (first defendant). ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »