Chennai Court December 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.
P. Chandriah Chetti and anr. Vs. Valchi Madhaviah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad478; (1961)2MLJ67
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal is against the revised final decree passed by the first Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in a suit for taking of accounts of a dissolved partnership Some facts are necessary to show why there was a revised final decree in the City Civil Court. Madras.2. Originally there was a partnership under the name and style of Messrs. Voora Sriramulu Chetti and Co. The partners of the said firm were three in number, Voora Sriramulu Chetti, Valchi Madhaviah Chetti, the first defendant in the suit, and Voora Seetharama who died on 26-4-1933, leaving behind his widow who was added as the 2nd defendant in the Suit. Pending the suit she also died and defendants 4 to 6 were brought on record as her legal representatives. Voora Sriramulu Chetti had a share of five annas, the first defendant a share of nine annas and Seetharama Chetti a share of two annas in the rupee. Sriramulu Chetti died on 16-1-1941.The plaintiffs as representing the estate of the late Voora Srir...
Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. Marudan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad150; (1962)1MLJ332
(1) This second appeal by the plaintiff turns upon the question of limitation. Both the Courts below have agreed and there is no dispute in this court that Art. 116 of the Limitation Act governs the suit. But they have differed as to when time began to run. The lower appellate Court was of the view that the date of the sales in favour of the plaintiff would be the starting point, while the trial Court was of the view that the date of the sales in favour of the plaintiff would be the starting point, while the trial Court held that July 21, 1951, when the plaintiff failed to get a decree declaring his title to the suit property, would be the starting point. I have to decide which of the two vies is the correct one.(2) One Chennimalai was adjudged an insolvent on February 25, 1933. On August 28, 1934, the Official Receiver sold to one Pathan Chettiar his right, title, and interest in the suit property. Pathan Chettiar got on July 14, 1937 symbolical delivery of the insolvent's share purch...
K. Kalianna Goundan Vs. Marappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ123
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. On 20th June, 1958, elections were conducted to the Panchayat of Pariyur, a minor Panchayat in the Coimbatore district. The Panchayat was divided into four wards, each one being entitled to return three candidates, thus making up a total of 12 members for the Panchayat Board. There were two factions in the village, one led by N.V. palani Gounder (Respondent's party to be referred to as N. V. party) and the other by N.K. Palani Gounder (Petitioner's party to be referred to as N.K. party). One T.M. Sivagurunathan was originally appointed as an Election Officer to conduct the elections for the four wards of the Panchayat. It is stated that, at the instance of the N.V. party, he was transferred, and in his place one L. Section Ramaswami was appointed to conduct the elections. N.K. party protested against the appointment of L.S. Ramaswami who, according to them, was a partisan and close associate of N.V. Palani Gounder. But the protest was of no avail. Elections ...
Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. M.L. Modi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad368; 1961CriLJ349
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. Crl. R. C. No. 843 of 1959, to take up these related proceedings in their logical order, is a proceeding in revision against the conviction of the revision petitioner (H. L. Modi), under Section 167 (8-one) of the Sea Customs Act which conviction was confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput Crl. R. C. No. 842 of 1959 is a revision proceeding by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence in the case, which was reduced on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Chingleput to a fine of Rs. 1000 alone, setting aside the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months imposed by the trial Court. 2. The facts arc very simple, though the matter reveals a somewhat tangled history with regard to the facts of trial. On 14-12-1957 this revision petitioner (H. L. Modi) disembarked at Meenam-bakkam, Aerodrome from an aeroplane which flew from Bombay to Madras. He was interrogated by certain Customs officials, and his trunk was searched; with the ...
Kondammal and ors. Vs. Duraiswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad384; 1961CriLJ351
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J. 1. These petitions relate to pending proceedings under Section 145 Crl. P. C. in the court of the Ex-Officio First Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. In both these petitions, it appears that the Magistrate made a reference to the civil court for determination of the factum of possession and the right thereto, within the ambit of Section 146 (1) Crl. P. C., but unfortunately, the revision petitioners (A party) appear to have failed to be present in the civil court, upon the relevant occasion, for reasons that we need not now enter into; at any rate, this much is clear that the civil court treated them as ex parte; and proceeded to dispose of the reference to it on that basis. 2. Now, it is obvious that the revision petitioners did not have an opportunity to show cause in the proceeding before the civil court, against any finding adverse to their case as to possession. Certainly, it is in the interests of equity and justice that they sh...
Ajax Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR141(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee, a public company, adopted the calendar year as its year of account for the business it carried on. The company resolved on October 30, 1954, to liquidate itself voluntarily, and the business of the company which was carried on for little longer was completely stopped by about the middle of December, 1954. In 1955, during no portion of which did the company carry on any manufacture or business, the liquidator sold its factory premises and machinery to Carborundum Universal Ltd. which was also a public company. The agreement of sale on February 10, 1955, was followed up by the deed of sale on March 10,1955. The sale price of Rs. 10 lakhs was made up of (1) Rs. 1,00,000 the value of the land, (2) Rs. 1,31,732 which was taken as the value of the buildings, and (3) Rs. 7,68,268, which was taken as the value of the machinery. The valuation of the buildings and machinery was on the basis of reports of experts in such valuation-see annexure 'C' and 'D'. The book...
H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and ors. Vs. Rahilna Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad111
(1) The following question has been referred for the opinion of the Full Bench :"Whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmanya Iyer, ILR 52 Mad 123 : (AIR 1929 Mad 1) (FB), requires reconsideration."The appeals which have given occasion for the reference involve a question as to the validity of a security bond executed in favour of the Register of this court creating a charge over certain immovable properties for payment of the amount due under a decree. The document was attested only by one witness at the time of execution. When the document was presented for registration, the admission of execution by the mortgagor was vouched by the signature of the Registrar. Two persons who identified the mortgagor before the Registrar also affixed their signature in token of their identification. The appellant, who impugned the validity of the security bond, contends that neither the Registrar nor the identifying witnesses could be deemed to be attesting witnesses, and those signature...
M.K. Navaneetham Naidu Vs. Gangiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad376; (1961)2MLJ10
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The point that arises in this revision petition is whether the order of the District Munsif of Tindivanam allowing a petition to implead the first respondent as plaintiff is correct. The facts are these: The plaintiff in O.S. No. 162 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif of Tindivanam died and his two widows (respondents 2 and 3 in this petition) were brought on record. The suit was for recovery of possession of certain properties on the basis of title created by a document of sale in favour of the second plaintiff. The first respondent filed a petition under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. seeking to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and to continue the suit. His case was that the property in dispute belongs to him and that the deceased plaintiff was his benamidar, the document of sale having been executed in his favour only to enable the recovery of the property, the first respondent claiming that as be was residing elsewhere, he...
Narasimhulu Chettiar Vs. K. Ramanatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad378; (1961)1MLJ363
1. This revision petition involves the construction of Order 34, Rule 14, C. P. C. The petitioner before us was the plaintiff in a small cause suit, S. C. S. No. 87 of 1956, filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. That suit was instituted for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 830-10-3, being the amount alleged to be due for principal and interest under a promissory note dated 15-3-1954 for Rs. 740/- executed by the respondent herein.The suit was decreed in his favour. In execution of the decree, certain properties belonging to the respondent were brought to sale. These properties were subject to three usufructuary mortgagee under three bonds, dated May 1953, July 1953 and March 1954, for Rs. 6000, Rs. 4000 and Rs. 1000 respectively, and executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, that is, the plaintiff-decree-holder in the small cause suit. The respondent objected to the proceedings in execution and filed an application, E. A. No. 268 of 1958, praying thai furth...
In Re: Devasahayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ161
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant, one Devasahyam, was charged with the murder of a seven year old boy namely Lakshmanan, by causing him hurt with some kind of an iron tool. The learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Mathurai convicted the appellant under Section 325, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.2. I might state immediately and tersely, after having scrutinised the entire record with some care, that the conviction is not sustainable. This is clearly a case of an accident, within the scope of Section 80, Indian Penal Code and no offence is really involved. Even if there was some slight negligence on the part of the accused, on the occasion in question, which led to the tragic death of the boy it would appear to amount only to an actionable wrong, for which a claim in damages might perhaps be sustained against the appellant. Even Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code does not appear to apply.3. The facts are very clear and si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›