Chennai Court October 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.
In Re: Vanchalinga Devar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ255
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 65 of the City Police Act seems to be totally unwarranted on the facts of the record. According to the evidence of the Sergeant (P.W.-1) he saw this petitioner standing near a cart containing certain bags of grain. Without any substantial reason for embarking upon any investigation, this Sergeant claimed to have questioned the petitioner. The petitioner's version appears to have been that he was taking the grain from one of his two shops to the other and that his cartman had just then left. Apparently it was not a continuous or coherent narrative from the point of view of P.W. 1, the Sergeant. Solely for this reason, P.W. 1, seems to have imagined that the property in question had either been stolen or had been fraudulently obtained. Proceedings were accordingly started with the result stated above.2. It seems fairly clear to me that Section 65 of the City Police Act does not give any uncontrolled power to any Police ...
M. Narayanakonar Vs. S.R. Kumaraswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ422
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. South Arasapatti Panchayat in Madurai district was. constituted for the first time in 1958. Elections were held for that newly constituted; Panchayat on 8th September, 1958, when seven persons including the petitioner and the first respondent were elected as members of that Panchayat. On 30th November, 1958, the first respondent was appointed Temporary President of that Panchayat under Section 25(3) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (X of 1950). The Regional Inspector appointed the Revenue Inspector to convene and conduct a meeting to elect the President. He convened a meeting to be held on 11th December, 1958. But he was absent from that meeting. The meeting, however, was held, and the first respondent presided over that meeting. At that meeting the first respondent was declared elected as President of the Panchayat. That election, however, was-declared void by the Government on 8th April, 1959. The Regional Inspector followed it up by an order, dated 29th Ap...
Kaliappan Vs. Kaliappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad354; 1961CriLJ245
1. What has happened in this case is that the learned District Magistrate of Salem in hearing an appeal preferred against convictions under Sections 323 and 447 I. P. G. set aside the convictions and sentences and remanded the case for fresh trial. This in his opinion became necessary for the reason that a grave illegality had been committed in the trial of the case and that the trial Magistrate had followed a procedure which was not warranted by law.He thought that the Magistrate, after finishing examination of four prosecution witnesses, immediately examined two defence witnesses without questioning the accused under Section 342 CM. P. C. and that the failure of the Magistrate to question the accused under Section 342 Crl. P. C. vitiated the convictions. It seems to me that in corning to this conclusion the learned District Magistrate was wholly in error. That this was a summons case must have been perfectly obvious and though Section 342 Crl. P. C. in the enabling part of that provi...
M.K. Sivagaminatha Pillai Vs. Nataraja Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad385; (1961)2MLJ1
Kailasam, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli for recovery of Rs. 12,537-11-11 based upon a foreign judgment obtained by the plaintiff in the District Court, Colombo. The plaintiff and his mother Kuppammal were trading as partners under the name and style of 'M.K. Sivagaminathan' in Princess Street, Bombay. Defendants 1 and 2 were carrying on business in partnership in Colombo under the name and style of 'Jayalakshmi and Co.' Defendants 1 and 2 borrowed from the plaintiff several sums under hundis drawn on the defendants and made, payable thirty days after sight to the order of the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd, Colombo. Defendants 1 and 2 accepted to pay the amount due under those hundis but failed to pay when they were presented to them on the due dates.2. The plaintiff and his mother filed a suit No. 15437/S on 7-10-1953 in the District Court at Colombo for recovery of Rs. 10,671-35 cents. Summonses were issued to defendants 1 an...
Elumalai Vs. Sri Kandaswami Devasthanam Tiruporur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad408; (1961)1MLJ136
1. The respondent obtained an order for ejectment against the petitioner On 5-12-1957 under the provisions of Sections 41 and 43 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. By that order the petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the property on 30-6-1957. Later, however, the order was varied presumably by consent of parties by which the time for delivery of possession was fixed as 17-2-1958. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed O. S. No. 614 of 1958 against the respondent for a declaration that the order of ejectment would not be binding on him: There was an injunction against the respondent executing the order of ejectment pending the suit. That suit was dismissed on 13-2-1960.2. Thereupon the respondent applied to the lower court for execution of the order directing delivery of possession. During the course of execution obstruction was offered by nine persons along with the petitioner. The lower Court with out notice to the petitioner directed the removal of the obstructio...
Joint Receivers of the Estate of Dewan Bahadur C. Arunachala Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR432(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - The facts leading to this reference require to be set out at some length. The estate of the Zamindar of Chunampet was all along assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The joint Hindu family consisted of the father and his three sons the last of whom was a minor. The two major sons commenced a partition suit, O. S. No. 64 of 1944, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, on the 11th September, 1944. In the course of that suit, a compromise was filed on the 16th September, 1948, whereby the two major sons, the plaintiffs in the suit, were appointed as joint receivers. Following this compromise, a preliminary decree was passed by the court on 5th October, 1948. It decreed that the admitted family properties set out shall be divided into four equal shares and that each of the two plaintiffs and the defendants (father and the minor son) be allotted a one-fourth share. It set out the common liabilities to be met by the entire family estate. It specified certain amoun...
Madanavalli Alias Sowbagyammal Vs. Thangavelu Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad298; (1961)1MLJ140
Jagadisan, J. 1. The property forming the subject-matter of this second appeal originally belonged to one. Govinda Padayachi. He died, leaving behind his daughter, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 310 of 1955, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tirukoilur, and a widow, the 2nd defendant in that suit. The 2nd defendant, having inherited the property as the limited heir under the Hindu law, alienated the property in favour of the first defendant under Ex. B. 2, dated 7-8-1940. The third defendant in the suit was impleaded as a person who had married the second defendant after the death of Govinda Padayachi. The plaintiff's case was that the alienation by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant was not for a purpose valid and binding upon the reversioners of the estate of Govinda Padayachi, and that, though normally she, as the presumptive revei-sioner of the estate of Govinda Padayachi, could not sue for recovery of possession of the property, she was entitled to recove...
K.S. Venkataraman and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad322; (1961)1MLJ163; [1961]12STC138(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants were building contractors. For the assessment years 1948-49 to 1952-53 the appellants were assessed to sales tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the turnover of their works contracts computed in accordance with the rules framed under that Act. Subsequently, in Cannon Dunkerley and Co., (Madras) Ltd. v. State of Madras, 1954 5 S.T.C. 216 : (AIR 1954 Mad 1130), this court held that the legislative provision in the Salex-tax Act for treating works contracts as involving taxable sales was ultra vires the legislature and that there was therefore no valid legislative sanction for taxing the turnover 'of such works contracts with reference to buildings.That was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerly and Co. (Madras) Ltd., : [1959]1SCR379 . After the declaration of the law on the validity of the legislative provision to tax works contracts by this court, the plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which this ...
Kochadai Naidu and anr. Vs. Nagayasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad247; 1961CriLJ821
1. This application is filed under Section 24 C. P. C. for the transfer of the proceedings in M. C. No. 8 of 1957, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periakulam, to the Sub Court, Dindigul, to be tried along with O. S. No. 35 of 1958 on its file. The petitioners who are the sons of the third respondent, and respondents 1 and 2 are descended from a common ancestor. The former claimed that they were members if a joint Hindu family with the latter. Respondents 1 and 2, however, state that the 3rd respondent had been taken in adoption by a divided paternal grand uncle of theirs, and that there is no such coparcenary as clamed.Sometime ago disputes ensued between the parties in regard to the possession of certain properties, and they assumed such proportions as to threaten a breach of the peace. The police, thereupon, initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. against both the parties before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Usilampatti in M. C. No. 8 of 1957. The Magist...
Ashok Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR397(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - Messrs. Ashok Motors Ltd., Madras, is a public limited company which commenced its business as a dealer in Austin cars and trucks and spares. Early in 1949, it commenced to import parts from abroad and assembled cars at its factory. In respect of the assessment year 1951-52, for which the account year ended on December 31, 1950, an amount of Rs. 2,48,483 was carried forward as depreciation allowance. It was claimed before the Income-tax Officer that this allowance should be set off against the total income of Rs. 4,44,462 and that the balance should be wholly exempted from tax under section 15C of the Act. In a similar manner, for the assessment year 1953-54, the claim was made by the assessee that out of the total business income of Rs. 6,91,549 exemption should be granted under section 15C of the Act to the extent of six per cent. of the capital employed in the industrial undertaking, though the above said income was not entirely derived from the industrial undertaki...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›