Chennai Court May 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.V. Perumal Chetty and Company by Partner M. Perumal Chetty and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ271
ORDER1. The petitioners were tenants of different portions of the premises No. 88/89, Godown Street, Madras, let to them for non-residential purposes, and they were in possession when the second respondent purchased the property in January, 1958. Notice of the application of the second respondent to the Government to exempt the building from the operation of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act XXV of 1949) was given to the petitioners, and their representations were duly considered, before the Government by their order, dated 5th August, 1959, exempted the premises from the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Each of the petitioners applied for the issue of a writ of cerliorari to set aside the order of the Government.2. In paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the Government set out the reasons for granting the exemption sought by the second respondent.The Government have carefully examined the request of the landlord in consultation with the Accommodation Controller, ...
Janaki Ammal and anr. Vs. D. Rangachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ527
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question as to the amount of Court-fee payable by the petitioners on the Memorandum of Appeal filed by them in A.S. No. 86 of 1958 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, against the decree dismising their suit in O.S. No. 33 of 1956, on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin.2. The substantial reliefs sought by the plaint as amended are:(a) that the first plaintiff is entitled to the properties described in Schedule A hereto and that the second plaintiff is entitled to the properties mentioned in Schedule B hereto by declaring that the documents, dated 2nd December, 1954, 27th January, 1955 and 16th February, 1955, are not binding as against the interests of the plaintiffs and setting aside the documents of 27th January, 1955, 2nd December, 1954 and 16th February, 1955; (b) for possession of the A Schedule property to the first plaintiff and the B Schedule property to the second plaintiff; and (c) for mesne profit...
Narasram Naraindas Alias Purushotamdas Vs. R. Venkataswami Naidu and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ328
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal involves a question of some degree of interest and importance, upon the application of Sections 3 and 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act to the facts of the case. The question, in brief, is whether a tenant who has admittedly contravened the terms of the lease which included a prohibition upon erecting a superstructure, is entitled to claim compensation for the building under Section 3 and in consequence, to claim the statutory option under Section 9 for purchase of the land. This particular point does not appear to have been decided by authority, so far, though, as I shall presently indicate there ae dicta in two Bench decisions of this Court in support of the interpretation that the tenant can so claim rights under the Act, notwithstanding the fact, that, technically speaking, he (the tenant) is a tort-feasor whom the landlord is entitled to restrain by a suitable injunction. The facts necessary for an appreciation of this question, and th...
V. Ramaswamy Iyengar and K.R. Subramania Iyer, Receivers, Estate of La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ516
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This reference under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-' tax Act relates to the assessment years, 1939-40 and 1941-42 to 1946-47, the relative year of account ending, on the 12th of April, of each year of assessment. One Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) and his son, Arunachalam (junior), constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. They were resident in India. The family had considerable properties in India and outside, comprising tea and rubber estates, cocoanut gardens and several money lending businesses. Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) died in 1934, leaving behind him his widow, Umayal Achi. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) who survived his son, died on 22nd February, 1938. On his death, the claimants to the properties were his two widows, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and his widowed daughter-in-law, Umayal Achi. Some time prior to his death, that is, on 8th January, 1938, Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) executed a will, making certain dispositions. Under the wi...
V. Ramaswamy Iyengar and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR377(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - This reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act relates to the assessment years, 1939-40 and 1941-42 to 1946-47, the relative year of account ending on the 12th of April of each year of assessment. One Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) and his son, Arunachalam (junior), constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. They were residents in India. The family had considerable properties in India and outside, comprising tea and rubber estates, coconut gardens and several money-lending businesses. Arunachalam Chettiar (junior) died in 1934, leaving behind him his widow, Umayal Achi. Arunachalam Chettiar (senior), who survived his son, died on February 22, 1938. On his death, the claimants to the properties were his two widows, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi, and widowed daughter-in-law, Umayal Achi. Some time prior to his death, that is. on February 22, 1938, Arunachalam Chettiar (senior) executed a will, making certain dispositions. Under the will, the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›