Chennai Court December 1960 Judgments
Konthalavalli Achi Vs. T.S. Ayyadarai Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad21
(1) This appeal, which involves the determination of certain important questions in the construction of Sect. 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (referred to as the Act) arises out of a suit for redemption for a usufructuary mortgage instituted by the first respondent. One Kandaswami, who was the original owner of the properties concerned in the suit, created thereon in favour of the appellant on 26th April 1927, a mortgage with possession for securing a loan of Rs. 6000. The document of mortgage stipulated that the mortgagor was to pay and redeem the properties within a period of three years, and that the mortgagee was to retain possession of the properties enjoying the usufruct till redemption. The mortgagee who obtained possession, leased back the properties to the mortgagor.(2) On the day following the mortgage, on 27-4-1957, Kandaswami executed a second but simple mortgage over the same properties in favour of Janaki, the daughter of the appellant. Some years later...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: E.V.K. Sampath and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad318; 1961CriLJ125; (1961)1MLJ328
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. I desire, at the outset, to state briefly the background of facts with reference to which these revision proceedings have arisen. At the same time, I wish to be very clear that I am making no observations upon the merits of the prosecution of these revision petitioners (accused 1 and 2); since the matter is not merely sub judice, but will continue to be such till the disposal of the case by the learned Sessions Judge of Madras Division. Briefly stated, the facts are that these revision petitioners (Sri E. V. K. Sampath and Sri A. V. P. Asai Thambi) are being prosecuted in respect of an alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. of defamation of the Council of Ministers of the Madras Government, which prosecution has been instituted by the public Prosecutor, upon sanction specifically accorded under Section 198-B Crl. P.C. It is necessary to refer to the actual facts, for the purpose of elucidating one principle which I underlies the enactment of Section 198-B C...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugam Chettiar Vs. V. Kalyanasundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad495; (1961)2MLJ5
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the application for execution of the decree in O. S. No. 92 of 1949, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, is barred by limitation. The suit was laid against the respondent and his wife Aruna-chalathanimal as the second defendant for recovery of certain monies due on dealings, which the appellant had with the former. Arunachalathammal was impleaded as a guarantor. On 24-11-1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, Passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 34,479-6-2 and costs, against the appellant dismissing the suit against Arunachala- . thammal with costs.As no statement of costs was filed on behalf of Arunachalathammal, those costs were not taxed. Nevertheless, the appellant filed A. S. No. 940 of 1952 in this court, challenging the validity of the decree in so far as it directed costs to be paid by the appellant to Arunachalathammal. That appeal was dismissed on 14-11-1956. In the meanwhile, the appellant had appl...
Tag this Judgment!K. H. Chambers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1960
Reported in: [1963]47ITR80(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In this reference the question of relief under section 25(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act arises in the following circumstances.G. A. Chambers was carrying on a business in the export of hides and skins and mica, in insurance and as a share broker. This proprietary business which was carried on under the name of Chambers and Co. was, it is common ground, subject to assessments under the 1918 Act. In 1932 G. A. Chambers ceased to do that business and handed it over to his son, K. H. Chambers. It is the case of the assessee, K. H. Chambers, that there was a succession by him to this business attracting section 25(4) of the Act, a contention which the department declined to accept. This question of the succession to the business in 1932 arose for the first time in 1948-49 when the business conducted by K. H. Chambers up to that date was taken over by a limited company from the 1st of January, 1948. The Income-tax Officer accepted the position that G. A. Chambers was assess...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Naguneri Peace Memorial Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad419; [1961]31CompCas705(Mad)
1. This civil revision Petition belongs to the unfortunate class of cases in which the courts have to decide which of the two innocent parties has to suffer for the fraud of a third party.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank doing banking business. The respondent is a lady who had dealings with the bank from the year 1952. She made two fixed deposits with the bank one for a sum of Rs. 2300 on 24-1-1955 and another for a sum of Rs. 550 on 5-4-1952 for three years, the interest payable being 5 per cent per annum. The fixed deposit receipts bearing Nos. 1293 and 1192 respectively were issued to her by the secretary. As she did not receive interest once in six months as per the rules of the bank, she issued a notice calling upon the bank to pay the interest accrued due on the said two deposits.The petitioner (bank) promptly denied its lability and replied to her letter stating that only a sum of Rs. 1000 had been deposited under fixed deposit receipt No. 1223. The respondent filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Industries Ltd. Vs. Velayutha Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ279Mad
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. These two civil revision petitions raise a common point which I shall make clear by reference to the facts of the case.2. Velayutha Mudaliar, the respondent 1 herein, filed a suit, O.S. No. 871 of 1957, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Salem, for recovery of a certain amount due from Palani Goundan, the respondent 2 herein, and attached, before judgment, a sum of Rs. 515 in the hands of the revision petitioner, the Mettur Industries, Ltd., hereinafter called the garnishees. This Rs. 515 included a provident fund amount of Rs. 322. Notice of interim attachment was served on the garnishees on 21 December 1957. They did not object to the attachment and the attachment was confirmed on 31 January 1958. The suit was subsequently decreed. When the garnishees were called upon to deposit the attached amount into Court, they intimated the Court, by Ex. A.1 dated 4 July 1958, that provident fund amount being exempt from attachment, they were unable to deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rangaswamy Vs. K. Govindaswamy Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad434; (1961)2MLJ122
Jagadisan, J.1. On 25th December 1950 one Venkalaswami Naicker. a resident of Adikarapalayam, Tiruchen-gode taluk, Salem Dt. borrowed a sum of Rs. 9000 from A. V. Srinivasalu Naidu, a resident of Appa-nayakkanpatti, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore Dt. and executed an instrument styled as a promissory note with a stipulation to pay interest at 61/2 per cent per annum. On the same day Srinivasalu Naidu, in whose favour the aforesaid instrument was executed, endorsed the installment in favour of his brother-in-law Rangaswami Naidu for valid consideration. Venkataswami Naicker died in or about November 1954. He left behind as his heir his brother, Govindaswami Naidu.Venkataswami Naicker is also supposed to have executed a testament bequeathing some of his properties to one Govindarajulu Naidu. Rangaswami, the endorsee referred to above filed the suit, O, S. No. 182 of 1955 on the file of the court of tile Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, seeking to recover the principal sum of Rs. 9000 advanced b...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.G. Jacob
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad482; 1961CriLJ778; (1961)2MLJ547
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant (R. G. Jacob) was an Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports in the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras. In respect of a certain incident, charges were framed against him under Section 161 I. P. C., Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Central Act II of 1947 and Section 165 I. P. C. The learned Special Judge, Madras, acquitted him of the charges under Sections 161 I. P. C. and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, but convicted him under Section 165 I.P.C. alone, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The facts of the particular incident which gave rise to the prosecution are as follows:2. One K. R. Naidu, (P. W. 8) a merchant in provisions, applied on 21-1-1958 to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for a licence for export of chillies (Ex. P. 1). The chief witness in this case, Arumugham, (P. W. 1) whose antecedents I shall refer to later, had an authorisa...
Tag this Judgment!Bibijan Alias Karimunnissa Bi and Another Vs. Collector of North Arcot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR730(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - One Kaniyambadi Abdul Shukkur Sahib was assessed to income-tax in a sum of Rs. 21,900. Acting under the provisions of section 46 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer forwarded a certificate to the Collector specifying the amount of arrears due form the assessee for taking steps to recover the amount. Under section 42 (2) of the Act, it was open to the Collector to recover the amount due by way of income-tax, as if it were an arrear of land revenue. But this is not what he did. He applied to the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for levying execution by attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to the assessee. Pending the execution petition, the assessee died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. They opposed the grant of the petition on the ground that it was not open to the Collector to apply to a civil court for execution, when there had been no decree making the assessee liable for the amount of tax. The learned...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Provident Fund Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR547(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - These two references, one under section 66(1) and the other under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, arose out of proceedings of the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 to assess the income of the assessee company from its life insurance business which it carried on in the corresponding years of account 1946 and 1947.As directed by section 10(7) of the Act, the profits of the assessee company had to be assessed each year either under rule 2(a) or under rule 2(b) of the Schedule to the Act, whichever was more favourable to revenue.The assessee company commenced its business in 1935. The first actuarial report was for the period May 24, 1935, to March 14, 1941, and it showed a surplus of Rs. 5,131-5-1. The assessment for the years of account between 1935 and 1940 had necessarily to be only on the application of rule 2(a). There was and there could have been no actuarial report for any antecedent period, without which there could be no recourse to rule 2(b). The next ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »