Chennai Court April 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.
Nazimbunnisa Bi and ors. Vs. Syed Bashur Sahih
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ325
1. The point raised in this revision proceeding is an interesting one, and,-after careful consideration, I am inclined to the view that the order of the lower Court is correct. The facts are that the revision petitioners attempted to evict the cultivating tenant under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955), upon two broad grounds (1) that the tenant denied the title of the landlords, and (2) that he was in arrears of rent, and hence liable to be evicted. The facts are that there was a previous petition upon the same averments taken on file as T.P. No. 5 of 1959, which was dismissed due to the default of appearance by the petitioners, who were in the position of plaintiffs. Without seeking to have this dismissal set aside under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners filed the present petition, and the learned Sub-Collector has held that this petition was barred under the principle of Order 9, Rule 9, which applied to the procedure under the Madras Cu...
T.N. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ327
1. These are related Civil Miscellaneous Appeals from the revised judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai in A.S. No. 61 of 1955, and the order in I.A. No. 169 of 1956. In C.M.A. No. 353 of 1957, the appellant is the plaintiff in the Court below, and, broadly stated, the grounds of appeal are identical with those in the related Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In C.M.A. No. 94 of 1958, the appellant is also the plaintiff. The relevant facts which are necessary for a disposal of the matter now before me, are as follows.2. A.S. No. 61 of 1955 was an appeal against the judgment of the District Munsif of Pudukottai granting a mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiff; but allowing certain reliefs to the defendants. In that suit, under Madras Act I of 1955, &e; question between the parties was whether the defendants were entitled to the benefits of that Act, and that was also the question which was agitated before the learned Subordinate Judge in appeal. By this judgment, dated ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Mettur Industrials Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad20; [1961(2)FLR259]; (1960)IILLJ351Mad; (1960)IILLJ351Mad; (1961)1MLJ12
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sankari. The appeal is now confined only to accused 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, of whom the first accused is the Mettur Industries, the second accused is the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the rest are all directors. 2. One A. R. Varma, a Weaving Production Clerk in the Mettur Industries, was dismissed by its then Manager on the ground that he was found sleeping during the night shift. The said Varma preferred a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, and the Tribunal, after enquiry, passed an award directing the reinstatement of the dismissed clerk. The said award was published in (he Fort St. George Gazette on 10-4-1957. 3. Under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the award became enforceable on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication, i.e., it became enforceable on 9-5-1957. But even on 9-5-1957 the dismissed servant was no...
Munuswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Kanniah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad152; (1960)2MLJ323
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. These civil revision petitions have been instituted under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) against the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Tiruvallur in four simple small cause suits be-fore him upon the foot of certain promissory notes. All these suits were dismissed by the learned District Munsif by means of a common judgment in which he held, upon the merits of evidence, that the suit promissory notes were not supported by consideration, that no cash was paid for them upon the occasion of their execution, and that, on the contrary, there was truth in the defence to these suits that they were executed, more Or less as a kind of collateral security, in a transaction between the defendants and one Gangadhara Naidu.2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners urges that there is a statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that such documents were supported by consideration, an...
Puthutotam Estates (1943) Ltd. Vs. Agricutural Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1960
Reported in: [1962]45ITR86(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR C.J. - The above two appeals are from the common judgment of Rajagopalan J. disposing of two Writ Petitions, Nos. 749 of 1956 and 48 of 1957. The appeals and the writ petitions which were directed to be heard along with the Writ appeals involve common questions of law concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Madras Act V of 1955. This Act was originally entitled the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, but its title was changed by the Amendment Act of 1958 in to the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 27th March, 1955, but charging provisions of the Act were to take effect as and from 1st April, 1955. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the levy of a tax on agricultural income from land in the State of Madras. Section 2 contains the definitions.Clause (x) defines 'total agricultural income' as follows :'Total agricultural income means the aggregate of all agriculture income mentioned in section 4 ...
In Re: L.N. Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad126; (1960)2MLJ340
1.Our learned brother was not inclined to accept the view of the law in these decisions, and preferred instead the decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Bachan Pande v. State . which took a view Opposite to the Madras eases. In the context of the importance of this question and the conflict of authority.: be made , a reference for placing the papers before a Bench in consequence of which these petitions are now before us.2. The, matter has now been extensively argued with citation of authorities, both by the learned Advocate General and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners (Sri G. Gopalaswami). We are indebted to the arguments of the learned Counsel far the elucidation and also for bringing to our notice the available and relevant authorities.3. The argument of the learned Advocate General has really two limbs or branches, but they are inter-related and not distinct. It could even be said that one branch leads to t...
In Re: L.N. Mukerjee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ394
Anantanarayanan, J.1.Our learned brother was not inclined to accept the view of the law in these decisions, and preferred instead the decision of a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Bachan Pande v. State : AIR1957All130 . which took a view Opposite to the Madras eases. In the context of the importance of this question and the conflict of authority.: be made , a reference for placing the papers before a Bench in consequence of which these petitions are now before us.2. The, matter has now been extensively argued with citation of authorities, both by the learned Advocate General and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners (Sri G. Gopalaswami). We are indebted to the arguments of the learned Counsel far the elucidation and also for bringing to our notice the available and relevant authorities.3. The argument of the learned Advocate General has really two limbs or branches, but they are inter-related and not distinct. It could even...
Francies Vallabarayar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ241
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act was:Whether the assessee is entitled to the depreciation on boats inherited by him from his late father?2. The Tribunal agreeing with the Departmental Officers, answered that question in the negative on a construction of the statutory expression ' actual cost to the assessee ' in Section 10(5) of the Act. No attempt was made at any stage to verify what the quantum of depreciation allowance should be in case the assessee was entitled to a depreciation allowance despite the fact that the boats in question having been inherited by him, there was no actual expenditure incurred by the assessee himself in acquiring these boats. In Section 10(5), Clauses (a) and (b) define the written down value with reference to the 'actual cost to the assessee'. It was only subsequent to the assessment year with which we are now concerned, 1951-52, that Section 10(5)(c) was inserted by the Amending Act of...
Francis Vallabarayar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR426(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act was :'Whether the assessee is entitled to the depreciation on boats inherited by him from his late father ?'The Tribunal agreeing with the Departmental Officers, answered that question in the negative on a construction of the statutory expression 'actual cost to the assessee' in section 10(5) of the Act. No attempt was made at any stage to verify what the quantum of depreciation allowance should be in case the assessee was entitled to a depreciation allowance despite the fact that the boats in question having been inherited by him, there was no actual expenditure incurred by the assessee himself in acquiring these boats. In section 10(5), clauses (a) and (b) define the written down value with reference to the 'actual cost to the assessee.' It was only subsequent to the assessment year with which we are now concerned, 1951-52, that section 10(5) (c) was inserted by the Amending Act of ...
In Re: Desingh Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1622
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant Desingh Nadar, a young man of about 23, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram division it Madurai of the murder of one Sivaswami Nadar at the house of the deceased on the night of 10-11-1959 (S. 302, I. P. C), and sentenced to death. The appeal of the condemned prisoner is also before us.2. The facts in this case are really simple, and the facts and probabilities, as we shall indicate presently, are overwhelming and decisive. The sole difficulty arises from the fact that no intelligible motive for the murderous assault appears in the evidence. It is not the case for prosecution that this was a pre-planned murder, though, at one stage, the police authorities seem to have thought that the appellant deliberately purchased an aruval and came to the house of Sivaswami Nadar (deceased) with some evil intent.Actually, the accused who was related to Sivaswami Nadar, was a comparatively well-to-do person, and was even occasionally...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »