Chennai Court January 1960 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.
Abdul Gani Minor and ors. Vs. V.M. Periyaswami Chetty and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad495; (1960)IIMLJ43
(1) The suit, C. S. No. 82 of 1953, out of which the above appeal arises was filed on the original side of this court by a firm of partnership, Messrs. V. M. Periyaswami Chetti and Co., to recover a sum of Rs. 21,701-2-6 with further interest and costs under the following circumstances.(2) The plaintiff-firm is carrying on business in metals, brass and copper sheets etc. at 399 Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Madras. They sold and delivered goods (metals, brass and copper sheets etc.) to another firm called M. K. M. Khader Masthan Sahib and Bros. which was a partnership consisting of two partners, who were brothers, M. Khader Masthan Sahib and Mohideen Mastan Sahib. This firm was carrying on business at Ayyasami Pillai St. Pudupet, Madras.The course of business is in respect of the dealings between the plaintiff firm and the firm of M. K. M. Khader Masthan Sahib and Bros., appears to be to settle accounts periodically at the end of Panguni in each Tamil year, and obtain the signature of one o...
Rukmani Ammal Vs. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad576
(1) The only point urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the lower appellate court went wrong in holding that Act 30 of 1956 gave no right to the appellant to question the sale. A few facts may be stated to appreciate the point raised by the learned counsel. A decree was obtained against the father of the appellants and in execution of that decree the property was brought to sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself. On the date of the sale, Central Act 30 of 1956 had not come into force. The appellant who is one of the daughters of the judgment-debtor contends that the sale in execution was being contested by her mother and the contest raised by the mother was ultimately decided in favour of the decree-holder by this court after Act 30 of 1956 came into force, and consequently by reason of the pendency of the proceedings regarding the validity of the sale it is urged that the sale must be deemed to have become valid only on the date when this court decided the matte...
C. Vasantha Pai Vs. A. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad239
Rajamannar, C.J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in W. P. No. 476 of 1956. It arose out of an election petition No. 28 of 1954, filed by the appellant who appeared before us in person and argued the case only, to set aside the election to Madras Legislative Council of two members to fill two vacancies to be returned from the Madras Graduates Constituency. The elections were held in March 1954 and the result of the election published on 12th April 1954. The contesting respondents before us and another candidate were declared duly elected. The appellant before us was also a candidate at the election.The election petition had a chequered career and at several stages in the process of the proceedings this court was approached to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the election petition the appellant prayed to declare the entire election to be wholly void, or in the alternative to declare the election of both the returned candi...
Joseph Sam Vs. Caltex (India), Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ794Mad
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, on 1 November 1955. The appellant was a depot operator in the employment of Caltex (India), Ltd. On 1 December 1954 he was dismissed from the service of the company after an enquiry by an officer of the company deputed for the purpose. Against this order of dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, which was disposed of by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by the order referred to above. Before the Additional Commissioner, a preliminary point was raised on behalf of the management that the appellant was not a person, to whom the provisions of the Act applied, because he fell within the cate...
Muniyammal, Proprietrix, Salem Vs. Third Additional Income-tax Officer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad366; [1960]38ITR664(Mad); (1960)IIMLJ96
(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, prohibiting the first respondent from granting to the second respondent certified copies of income-tax assessment orders or other records relating to the income-tax assessment of one G. V. Rangaswami Naidu.(2) G. V. Rangaswami Naidu was an income-tax assessee who was running a bus service in Dowlatabad, Krishnagiri, Salem Dt. He died intestate on 21-10-1956, leaving behind him his heirs, the first petitioner, his widow, a minor daughter, and the 2nd respondent, his mother. The widow entered into possession of the estate. She put herself forward as the proprietrix of the bus service, and she submitted returns to the income-tax authorities for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. She was assessed to tax on the basis of the returns; the taxes have also been paid.(3) The second respondent filed O. S. No. 3 of 1957 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, aga...
Kuppa Goundar Vs. Joint Sub-registrar, Iii, Salem and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad401; (1959)2MLJ63
(1) This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Joint Sub-Registrar, III, Salem, dated 28-11-1959 passed under the following circumstances:(2) One Ponnuswami Gounder filed Original Enquiry No. 1 of 1959 before the Joint Sub-Registrar III, Salem, claiming compulsory registration of a mortgage document dated 12-2-1959 under S. 73 of the Indian Registration Act. His case was that the mortgage document was executed by on Ellappa Gounder and his brother, Kuppa Gounder (Ellappa Gounder also acting as guardian of his minor son, Thangavelu) having received consideration of Rs. 4600 in cash.It was stated by this Ponnuswami Gounder that after receiving consideration and after executing the mortgage bond referred to, the executants promised to have the document registered on or before 16-2-1959. Finding that the executants did not keep up their promise and fulfil their obligation to have the document registered. Ponnuswami issued a registered notice th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›