Chennai Court November 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 5 of about 51 results (0.026 seconds)N.S. Vasudeva Iyer Vs. Ramakrishna Iyer (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ168
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in these two appeals against the judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., by which he disposed of three appeals, A.S. Nos. 567, 734 and 735 of 1952, is how far the debts sued upon should be scaled down in accordance with the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958, which came into force during the pendency of the above appeals. The Act received the assent of the President on 5th July, 1958 and was published in the Kerala Gazette on 14th July, 1958. Under Section 1(3) of the Act 'it shall come into force at once' and extend to the whole of the State of Kerala. These appeals arise out of two suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat for recovery of sums due under two mortgages. A.S. Nos. 567 and 734 of 1952 were from the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 46 of 1944 and A.S. No. 735 of 1952 was from O.S. No. 16 of 1945. L.P. Appeals No. 95 and 79 of 1956 relate to the above two suits respectively. In O.S. No. 46 of...
Tag this Judgment!Pilla Venkatamma and ors. Vs. R.M. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad403
Subrahmanyam, J.(1) Defendants 5 and 6 appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of north Arcot dated 13-7-1956 in O. S. No. 9 of 1955 on his file.(2) The suit was to enforce a simple mortgage executed by one Abdul Karim. He died before the date of the institution of the suit. Defendants 1 to 4 are his sons. In execution of a decree for money which had been obtained against Abdul Karim one Rangappa had purchased the mortgaged properties in court auction. Rangappa died before the institution of the suit. Defendants 5 and 6 are his heirs.(3) On 7-2-1929 Abdul Karim and one of his sons, namely, the 2nd defendant, executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff's grand-father Chidambaram Chettiar one for Rs. 1000 and other for Rs. 2000. On the same date, namely, 7-2-1929, Abdul Karim executed the mortgage deed Ex. A. 4 in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar securing repayment of the debts borrowed under the promissory notes, namely, Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 for Rs. 10...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anthony Alias Bakthavatsalu
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ927
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the accused Anthony alias Bakthavatsalu, a young boy aged about 15 years who has been convicted Under Section 376, IPC and directed to be detained in the Senior Certified School, Chingleput, for a period of three years, by the Court of Juveniles, Egmore, Madras. When this appeal was admitted, our learned brother Somasundaram, J. prepared a Memorandum pointing out that under Rule 7 of the rules framed Under Section 44 of the Madras Children Act, the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) for the trial of summons cases has to be observed by the Juvenile Court in the tria1 of all cases, whether summons or warrant cases, but that this provision did not render it clear how precisely the Juvenile Court should proceed to try an offender for an offence exclusively triable by Court of Session, such as the present offence Under Section 376, IPC The learned Judge observed that the procedure to be followed by the Juvenile Court...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataswami Naidu Vs. Nachimuthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ173
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for records in O.P. No. 30 of 1958, on the file of the Election Commissioner (District Munsif), Tiruppur, and to quash the order, dated 17th April, 1959, therein.2. The election to the Village Panchayat of Selakaraichal in Coimbatore District took place on 10th June, 1958. For Ward No. 4 three seats had to be filled up. Six persons filed their nominations for the three seats, amongst whom the petitioners in the two petitions were contesting candidates. There were four more candidates who filed their nominations. But the Election Officer rejected the nomination papers of those four persons, as not being proper, with the result, that for the three seats for which there had to be an election, there were only two candidates, namely, Venkataswami Naidu and Rangaswami Naidu. The Election Officer, therefore, declared both of them to be duly elected, holding the other seat was vacant. This declaration...
Tag this Judgment!All India General Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. S.P. Maheswari
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad484
Ramaswami, J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decision of our learned brother Basheer Ahmad Sayeed, J. in C. C. C. Appeal No. 54 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge of Madras in O. S. No. 1568 of 1950.(2) The facts arising for consideration lie within a brief compass and have been established beyond doubt. The plaintiff Maheswari is the wife of the deceased Palanivel Nadar. Palanivel Nadar has a brother-in-law by name C. M. Thyagarajan. This Thyagarajan was the agent of the defendant insurance company, the All India General Insurance Company Limited. Palanival Nadar, as appears from the evidence, was a heavy drinker and afflicted with syphilis. On 2-1-1948 the deceased Palanivel Nadar took out a life assurance policy bearing No. 11096 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Palanivel Nadar died on 13-6-1948 surviving him the plaintiff Maheswari and two minor children. The claim of Maheswari was disputed by the defendant company.T...
Tag this Judgment!B. Varadarajulu Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad393
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Government of Madras, namely, G. O. Ms. 1683 (Home Department) dated 11-6-1954. In and by that order, the Government directed that the appellant be dismissed from service with effect from 20-3-1953.(2) The appellant was the Official Receiver, Coimbatore. He also held other offices, namely, the office of the Additional Judge of the Court of Small Causes and the office of Rent Controller. Several charges were framed against him, relating to discharge of his functions as Official Receiver. The Additional District Judge of Coimbatore conducted the enquiry and he submitted a report, holding that two of the charges had been fully proved and two others had been proved in part.Subsequently, three further charges were framed by the District Judge, one of which related to his ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Radhakrishna Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religiou ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ494
Anantanarayanan, J.1. I his is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the Court below in a suit filed under Section 62 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act (XIX of 1951), to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments in respect of the suit chatram properties.2. The facts are that this chatram was created by a deed of trust dated 26th November, 1942(Exhibit B-1) for the benefit of members of the Arya Vysya community of that area, who visit Gunaseelam for the purpose of participating in specified religious festivals in the month of Purattasi. Exhibit B-2 is a subsequent transfer of the management of this trust executed by the original founder, Venkatachala Chettiar and others. The simple point involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments was justified in notifying this charity as one within the ambit of Madras Act (XIX of 1951), because it was a religious charity (Section 6, ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Ahmed Mustafa Saheb Vs. K.T.A. Basheer Ahmed Dawood and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad399; (1960)IIMLJ570
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the first respondent in C. C. C. Appeal No. 135 of 1952 before Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. which was itself an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1592 of 1950 on the file of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. In that judgment and decree the trial court had held that the first defendant (appellant here) was a bona fide transferee for value from the ostensible owner, with reference to the western 2/3rd portion of house No. 39, Khana Bagh Street, Triplicane, which was the subject-matter of litigation, upon the principle of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Judge (Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.) went into the facts of evidence at length, and came to the conclusion that--'the judgment and decree of the learned City Civil Judge holding that the 1st defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration in good faith, cannot be upheld and must be set aside.'The fi...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmi Ammal Vs. M.V. Venkatarama Chetty
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad347; (1960)IIMLJ135
Rajamannar, C.J. (1) The only question in this appeal from the judgment of Ramaswami J. is whether the right of a Hindu widow in the property of the joint family, of which her husband was a coparcener, devolving on her under S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, is liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree obtained against her. The two Courts below and Ramaswami J. have held that it can be. We are in entire agreement with this decision. Section 3(2) of the Act is in the following terms: 'When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu law other than the Dayalbhagh school or by customary law dies intestate, having at time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had.'' Sub-sec. (3) declares that any such interest shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu woman's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of cla...
Tag this Judgment!S.P.K. Kader Mohideen of Pettai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad302; [1960]38ITR647(Mad)
(1) The following question was referred to us under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act:"Whether the assessment of the entire profits of S.P.K. Kadar Mohideen and Co. Ltd., in the hands of the assessee for assessment year 1949-50 invoking the provisions of S. 44-D of the Indian Income-tax Act is valid ?"When the reference came up for hearing, it was found that, in order to answer the question referred to, certain matters had to be elucidated, and accordingly, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was called upon to send a further statement of the case with specific findings on the following points:1. Whether the assessee returned the dividend income of his wife and minor sons in discharge of the statutory liability imposed by S. 16(3) of the Income-tax Act or because of his consciousness that he was the real owner of the shares.2. Whether the consideration paid for the shares by P. M. Mohamed Naina Sahib was out of his own monies or was it contributed by the assessee himself from out of his ow...
Tag this Judgment!