Chennai Court November 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.
M.C. Chaganlal Sowear Vs. P. Anantaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad415
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Ramaswami Counder, J. arises out of a suit for redemption filed by the first respondent. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed on 20th March 1930 by the 2nd respondent and his undivided brother one Vaidyanathan, who died subsequently, for securing repayment of a sum of Rs. 2000 borrowed by them along with their uncle. On 5-3-1952 the second respondent sold the mortgaged property to the first respondent directing the latter to redeem the mortgage. The first respondent offered to redeem the mortgage on payment ot Rs. 2000, the principal amount, but the first defendant (appellant) refused the offer and insisted that besides the principal, the other sums including interest due under the provisions of the mortgage deed should also be paid before the mortgage could be redeemed. Thereupon, the suit, O. S. No. 114 of 1952, was filed by the first respondent in the court of the District Munsit of Poonamallee. The learned Distr...
The State of Madras Vs. the Erode Yarn Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC175(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. The question that is raised by this revision petition filed by the State of Madras is what is the turnover for purposes of the licence under Section 5 of the Act. The assessee is a dealer in yarn. In respect of the assessment year 1955-56, the assessing authority determined the turnover taxable at 3 pies in the rupee at Rs. 71,846-2-6 and the turnover subject to tax at 1/2 per cent, at Rs. 3,87,032-6-6. The turnover covered by the licence was fixed at Rs. 39,99,544, for which a licence fee of Rs. 2,000 was levied. On appeal, a certain part of the turnover was deleted from that assessable to tax at 1/2 per cent, and the licensable turnover was accordingly fixed at Rs. 37,18,933.2. In the appeal before it, the Tribunal took the view, following earlier decisions of its own, that the licence turnover is the turnover which is assessed to single point tax on the strength of the licence, and that the turnover that gets exempt with or without the licence should be exclud...
K. Nataraja Iyer and ors. Vs. Subbiah Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ397
Veeraswami, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises, was for recovery of money due on a usufructuary mortgage dated 20th January, 1940. That mortgage was executed by the first defendant in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. The consideration therefor included the principal and interest due on an earlier simple mortgage dated 22nd January, 1932 also executed by the first defendant, in favour of the same mortgagee. Rejecting the contention of the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held that the debt was liable to be scaled down under Section 9-A of Madras Act IV of 1938 and confirmed the preliminary decree granted by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court also rejected another contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, namely, that the mortgagee not having been put in possession pursuant to the usufructuary mortgage, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim damages for use and occupation of the land. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Court.2. On behalf o...
Corporation of Madras Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad390; (1961)1MLJ226
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal by the Corporation of Madras arises out of a suit which is instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs. 702-11-9 together with interest. The claim relates to the proportionate amount payable by the defendant to the Corporation in respect of a certain work done by the latter in metalling and lighting a private street in S. No. 94/2 in Mambalam, Madras. There is 1:0 dispute that the liability of the defendant arose under Section 218(1) (sic) of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919. One of the defences was that the suit was barred by limitation, in view of Section 390-A of that Act.2. The trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation in so far as it related to the recovery of charges for improvements under Ex. A. 11 but that the claim in respect of expenses incurved for lighting except items 7 and 8 was in time. The trial Court decreed the suit on that basis. On appeals preferred by both the corporation as well as the defendant, in so tar as the dec...
Manicka Mudaliar (M.) Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ592Mad
Rajamannar, C.J.1. We are convinced that the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quite competent and the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the contesting respondent. The claim was for arrears of salary and one month's salary in lieu of notice. The contention on behalf of the management before Ramachandra Ayyar, J., and before us on appeal was that, at the time when the application was made, the respondent was no longer in the service of the employer and therefore according to the definition, he would not be a 'workman,' and not being a workman, he would not be entitled to apply to the labour court. The contention was not accepted by the labour court.2. In the first place it must be pointed out that there is nothing in Section 33C(2) of the Act, which says that only a 'workman' can apply under that provision. All that it says is that where a workman is entitled to receive from the employer any benefit, the amount of such benefit may be ...
S. Krishna Chettiar Vs. M. Raman Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ385
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. Sri Annadhana Vinayagar Temple at Asariar Street, Tirumangalam, was founded by the Arya Vysya Kasukkara Chetty community of the village. Admittedly, the temple was managed by the community by electing a trustee from amongst themselves. The petitioner who has been holding office for over 30 years as trustee was presumably elected by the community to such office. There is nothing on record to show for what period a trustee elected by the community functions. The case for the petitioner is that a trustee elected by the community would be entitled to hold office for life or till removed by the community. Although the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department recognised that the community managed the temple by electing a trustee from time to time, it is not stated for how long a trustee elected by the community would hold office.2. On 27th December, 1957, the Assistant Commissioner,...
T.P. Arumugha Bhakthar Vs. K. Narasimha Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad299
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The appellant obtained a money decree against the first respondent in O. S. No. 17 of 1954 on 30-8-1955. The second respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant in O. S. No. 8 of 1954 on the file of the same Court on 7-9-1955. In E. P. No 123 of 1957, the second respondent applied for execution of the decree in O. S. No. 8 of 1954, by attaching the decree in O. S. No. 17 of 1954. The second respondent also applied simultaneousely for the issue of a prohibitory order under Order 21 R. 46 C. P. C. The attachment was ordered and the prohibitory order was issued on 16-11-1957. The attachment of the decree in' O. S. No. 17 of 1954, was made absolute On 14-12-1957, and E. P. No. 123 of 1957 was closed. The second respondent did not take any further steps to execute the decree in O. S. No. 17 of 1954. On 24-9-1958 the appellant filed E. A. No. 373 of 1958 seeking permission to execute the decree in O. S. No. 17 of 1954 and obtained that permission on 11-10-1958....
T.P. Arumugha Bakthar Vs. K. Narasimha Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ355
Rajagopalan, J.1. The appellant obtained a money decree against the first respondent in O.S. No. 17 of 1954 on 30th August, 1955. The second respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 8 of 1954 on the file of the same Court on 7th September, 1955. In E.P. No. 123 of 1957, the second respondent applied for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 8 of 1954 by attaching the decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1954. The second respondent also applied simultaneously for the issue of a prohibitory order under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil Procedure Code. The attachment was ordered and the prohibitory order was issued on 16th November, 1957. The attachment of the decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1954 was made absolute on 14th December, 1957, and E.P. No. 123 of 1957 was closed. The second respondent did not take any further steps to execute the decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1954. On 24th September, 1958, the appellant filed E.A. No. 373 of 1958 seeking permission to execute the decree in O.S. No. 17...
G. Sarangapani Iyengar Vs. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad383; (1961)1MLJ232
Srinivasan, J. 1. This second appeal arises under the following circumstances. The appellant as plaintiff in O. S. No. 212 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai, sued to recover possession of certain property and for mesne profits from the defendants in that suit. Those defendants consisted of the father, the mother and the four minor defendants. The case set up by the present appellant (plaintiff in that suit) was that item of property had vested in him by reason of certain earlier partition arrangements which had been effected. The defendants in that suit resisted that contention and attacked the alleged partition arrangements as sham and colourable transactions. Issues were joined, and at the time of trial, the plaintiff in that suit was challenged to take a special oath for the purpose of resolving the controversy whether there was a valid partition entitling the plaintiff to the property in question. Such an oath was taken, and, thereupon, the learned District Munsif...
V. Kanakaiya Chetty and Co. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad398; (1961)1MLJ348
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. The facts of this appeal are that the plaintiffs in the Court below were consignees in respect of goods consisting of 213 steel squares and 183 steel flats (of 18 feet length) weighing 20 tons. This consignment was despatched on 13-12-1953 by the Indian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., Burnpur, West Bengal, at railway risk under R. R. No. 46111, through wagon N. W. 50009 K. C. 20 G. V. The record shows that this wagon was part of an Express Goods Train which ran between Bumpur station and Madras Salt Cottaurs.When the first plaintiff obtained delivery at Madras, he found that the contents of the wagon had been disturbed, and so asked for open delivery with re-weighment. It was then discovered that the goods received at Madras weighed 239 maunds 1 seer as against the invoice weight of 547 maunds 10 seers. Since the railway administration (defendant) undertook delivery in terms of weight, not description of goods, it is the deficiency in weight that is material. The first...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »