Chennai Court March 1960 Judgments
In Re: Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1340
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. The accused in this case (Natesan alias Natarajan) has been convicted of the murder of a young; woman named Papathi (S. 302 IPC) and also of attempting to commit suicide (S. 309 I, P. C.) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore in S. C. 202 of 1959 on his file. The appellant has been sentenced to death upon the charge of murder, and to simple imprisonment to a period of one year upon the charge of attempt at suicide.2. The facts are extremely simple, and the appellant does not really dispute that he did stab the victim of the occurrence with a knife. His case is that she at first attempted to inflict some injuries on him with the weapon, and that he wrested the weapon from her and inflicted the grievous injuries on her in self defence. The simple matter for consideration, upon the merits, is whether there is any semblance of truth in this counter version advanced by the appellant at the trial.3. The unfortunate victim of this incident was a you...
Tag this Judgment!Ethiraja Mudali and ors. Vs. Muthu Reddi Alias Muthukrishna Reddi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad410; (1961)1MLJ482
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 4-12-1922 four brothers executed Ex. A.1, a deed of mortgage for Rs. 3000 in favour of one Govinda Reddi. The consideration for it according to the recitals in the document, was thug made up (a) Rs. 350 being the balance due on an earlier mortgage executed on 25-11-1907 by the father of the mortgagors in favour of Govinda Reddi; (b) Rs. 382 being the balance due on a mortgage executed by the father of the mortgagors in favour of one Doraiswami Pillai, of which Govinda Reddi had taken an assignment; (c) Rs. 404 due on a promissory note executed by the father and mother of the mortgagors in favour of Govinda Reddi; and (d) Rs. 1955 being the balance due on a promissory note executed by one Thiruvengada Mudaliar, a brother of the mortgagors and their father in favour of Govinda Reddi on 31-7-1919. The document also contained a recital making it plain that the brothers had divided amongst themselves on 1-12-1922, for it says: 'The kurchit for the partition effect...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanam and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR485(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the following two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal of Bombay :'1. Whether the assessment of the share income of the non-resident partner under the second proviso to section 23(5)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the hands of the assessee firm is justified in law ?2. Whether the levy of tax at the maximum rate is correct ?'The facts leading to this reference are briefly these. A firm, consisting of four partners, styled Gnanam and Sons, Colombo, is carrying on business in Colombo. This firm is an admittedly resident and ordinarily resident firm in the taxable territories. Of the four partners, three are also admitted to be resident in India. One of the partners, Kumaraswamy, is a non-resident, and his share income was computed at Rs. 3,667 for the assessment year 1951-52 and Rs. 4,337 for the assessment year 1952-53. The Income-tax Officers took procee...
Tag this Judgment!Munian Muthuraja Vs. P.S. Rajarathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ475
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding raises an interesting point under Section 4-B of Act XXV of 1955 as amended by Act XIV of 1956. The facts are very simple. The revision petitioner is a lessee for a period of one year in respect of a cashewrmt jjlantation. The landlord refused to execute a lease-deed as required by Section 4-B of Act XXV of 1955, though the revision petitioner was admittedly not in arrears, and has actually deposited the advance amount due. The case of the landlord was not that the revision petitioner was in arrears and was therefore liable to be evicted, but that the revision petitioner was not a ' tenant' as defined under the Act, because the land was not taken on lease for the use of the land for the purpose of agriculture or horticulture as defined in Section 2 (b). The argument here is that the revision petitioner took the land on lease for enjoyment of the usufruct in respect of the cashewnut plantation, and that this would not bring him within the d...
Tag this Judgment!Damodaram Pillai Vs. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Alias Kuttiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1960
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ171
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. A.S. Nos. 403 of 1976 and 404 of 1976 are preferred by one Damodarm Pillai, who is the first claimant in C.R.O.P. No. 245 of 1974 and the first defendant in O.S. No. 192 of 1974, both on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ghingleput, questioning the validity and correctness of the common judgment rendered by the Additional Subordinate Judge Ghingleput in the said G.R.O.P. No. 245 of 1974 and O.S No. 192 of 1974.A.S. No. 720 of 1977 is another appeal preferred by the above-said Damodaram Pillai against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ghingleput made in G.R.O.P. No. 275 of 1966. Originally, an appeal as against the order in G.R.O.P. No. 275 of 1966 was filed before the District Court, Ghingleput in A.S. No. 103 of 1968. Subsequently it was transferred by the orders of this Court, to this Court for being heard along with the other connected appeals A.S. Nos. 403 and 404 of 1976, and then renumbered as A.S. No. 720 of 1977, since the s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Madras Vs. R. Ramnarayan Chellaram.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR485(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The facts are not in controversy. They lie within a brief compass, and, as they have been set out in the statement of the case, we do not propose to set them out over again.The contention of the learned counsel for the Department, that there is no provision for reducing the total world income by the earned income relief for the purpose of section 17(1), is well-founded, and must prevail. Section 15A Makes it clear that the total income has to be reduced by the earned income only for the purpose of income-tax, and that the income so reduced is to be deemed to be the total income. On a reading of section 15A it should be obvious that the earned income relief does not enter into the computation of the total income world income. With reference to section 17(1), neither the computation of the world income nor the computation of the total income of the assessee comes into play. We take the computed total world income and the computed total income, and the total world income...
Tag this Judgment!Foolchand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Railway by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad64; (1960)1MLJ243
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This petition seeks to revise the order of the Second Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras in O. S. Wo. 426 of 1957, directing the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the suit to elect as to against which of the two sets of defendants he would prefer to continue the suit.2. The petitioner despatched certain goods to Howrah through the railway. Respondents 1 to 3 represent the three zones of the railway through which the goods had to travel. The 4th respondent is an insurance company with whom evidently the petitioner had entered into a contract of insurance. The petitioner claimed that the goods which he sent to Howrah were tampered with during the course of transit, and alleging misconduct on the part of the railway servants sued to recover damages. The 4th respondent, the insurer, was also made a party to the suit and a decree was sought against the insurer as well. There was however no complaint on the part of the latter that the precise nature...
Tag this Judgment!United Nilgiris Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR369(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessment of the assessee company, referred to as the new company in the statement of the case, for the assessment year 1947-48 was reopened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act on the ground, that excessive relief by way of depreciation allowances had been granted to the assessee in the original assessment when it was completed on November 22, 1950. The validity of that reassessment, which was the issue raised in the question referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Act, was challenged by the learned counsel for the assessee on three grounds. (1) The initiation of proceedings under section 34 with the issue of the notice dated January 20, 1954, made four years after March 31, 1948, when the assessment year 1947-48 came to a close, was barred by limitation. (2) The assessees case did not fall within the scope of the second proviso of section 34(3) of the Act as it now stands amended. (3) If the proviso did apply, it was an unenforceable statutory provi...
Tag this Judgment!Hidayath Unnissa Begum Vs. Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad174
Balakrishna Aiyar, J.1. At the instance of the Municipal Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli, Government acquired for purposes of a bus stand an extent of 14,438 sq. ft. in T. S. No. 2250 of Tiruchirapalli town. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11-6-1952. On 31-3-1953. the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the compensation payable at as. 8 a sq. ft. On 24-4-1953, one Hidayat Unnissa Begum being one of the persons interested in the land filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. ft. and asking that a reference be made to court.Accordingly, on 20-5-1953, the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. On 12-3-1956, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an award fixing the compensation at Rs. 1-4-0 a sq. ft. As regards costs, he directed that the Collector should pay the claimant Rs. 215-10-0 as costs and that the claimant in her turn sh...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Abdul Malick Saheb Vs. T.P. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad190; (1960)2MLJ355
Jagadisan, J. 1. T.P. Ahmed Hussain Sahib a Muslim resident of Tirupatlur, North Arcot Dt. died on 24th July, 1952, leaving behind considerable properties and two widows, 7 sons and 3 daughters. Zuleika Bi was one of the two surviving widows. She had 3 sons by Ahmed Hussain, the eldest of whom was T.P. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib. He was a lad of. about 18 years old at the time of his father's death, and his two younger brothers were still minors. There was a partition of the estate of the said Ahmed Hussain Sahib between his heirs in which all the heirs including Zuleika Bi and Muhammad Yousuf Sahib got their legitimate share of the properties as per Muslim law. Zuleika Bi's brother was one Abdul Jabbar Saheb, a merchant at Hindupur having a residence at Tirupattur also. He evinced interest in the affairs of his sister and was instrumentral in bringing about an amicable division of the assets of the deceased Ahmed Hussain Between his heirs. Yousul Sahib was living with his mother and he exe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »