Chennai Court August 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.
Ramaswamy Raja and anr. Vs. Ellappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ555
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This revision petition raises the question whether a Revenue Divisional Officer exercising the powers granted to him under Madras Act XXV of 1955, would be entitled to grant an order of injunction pending proceedings initiated under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act.2. The respondent claiming to be a cultivating tenant deposited the rent under Section 3(3)(a) of the Act and while proceedings under Clause (b) of that Sub-section were pending applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer for an injunction to restrain the landlord and certain others claiming to be purchasers from him from interfering with his possession. The Officer granted the injunction prayed for and the jurisdiction of the Officer to do so is challenged in the Civil Revision Petition.3. An injunction is a remedy which is preventive in its nature, that is a remedy before any injury is sustained, i.e., when there is only a threat of an injury. It is now accepted by the decisions of this Court that except in...
Ramdoss Purushothamdoss Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: [1961]41ITR66(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee was the financing partner of the registered partnership firm. The other partner, Rangaswami, was styled the working partner. That the assessee had to borrow for financing the business of the partnership firm and that he had to pay interest on such loans were never in doubt. The figures were set out in paragraph 7 of the statement of the case. The first question referred to this court under section 66 (2) of the Act raised the issue, whether the assessee was entitled to deduct these payments in computing his taxable income, which included his share of income from the registered partnership firm. We should make it clear that we are concerned in this case only with the claim to deduct payments of interests on loans borrowed by a partner of a registered partnership firm to finance the business of the partnership him. We are not on any larger issue, and nothing we say in this judgment should be construed to take us beyond the limited scope which we have indica...
N. Pattay Gounder Vs. P.L. Bapuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad276
1. The main question to be decided in this second appeal filed by the first defendant from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in A. S. No. 1 of 1958, is whether the conveyance under Ex. B-T dated 28-5-1946 is an out and out sale with a covenant for repurchase or a mortgage by conditional sale. The trial Court with which the lower appellate Court agreed held that Ex. B-1 was a mort-gage by conditional sale and granted a decree for redemption. The aggrieved first defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. The property in question Originally belonged to one Palani Moopan. He executed Ex. B-1 in favour of the first defendant for a consideration of Rs. 4000. The document was styled as a sale-deed and purported to convey the property absolutely to the first defendant by way of sale. Out of the consideration, a sum of Rs. 2000 was reserved with the vendee to pay off and an earlier mortgage on the suit property and certain other properties. The balance of ...
A.K. Abdul Azeez Vs. V.C. Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad281
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent who was the agent of the Maya Engineering Works, Calcutta, on 27-5-1949 for the purchase of 42 pumps. An advance-of Rs. 100 was paid on the date of the contract The balance of the purchase money was agreed to be paid against the delivery of railway receipt which was to be sent through the respondent's banker. The terms of the contract were that the goods should be sent by train to the Madras Salt Cotaurs, and that the responsibility of the same was to cease with the delivery of the goods to the carrier at Calcutta.The Maya Engineering Works did not, however, send the goods by rail. It is unnecessary now to ascertain the reason which prevented them front adhering to the terms of the contract. In August, 1949, they sent by ship the goods agreed to be purchased, and sent the appellant the relative invoice with a request to honour the bill. The appellant did not pay the bill or receive the document, as he was ...
N. Manickam Vs. Arunagiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ583
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 contested the election for Block No. 2 in Ward No. 2 of the Bhavani Panchayat. 10th October, 1958 was the date of the poll. On 13th October, 1958, the petitioner who had secured 274 votes as against his nearest rival, the first respondent who got 216 votes was declared elected. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 73 of 1958 to set aside the election of the petitioner. The contention was that even on the date of the nomination the petitioner was disqualified under Section 16(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act (X of 1950). It was not disputed that on 31st December, 1957, the petitioner was convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 7227 of 1957 under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The petitioner's attempt to have the conviction and sentence set aside in Revision by the High Court failed, a...
Veeraiyya Kalingarayar Vs. the Trichy District Board Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad409; (1961)2MLJ37
1. This is a rather extraordinary case. On 2-9-1957 there was a sale in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 214 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli. The auction purchaser, who is the appellant in this appeal, deposited 25 per cent of the price. Within the time limited by law and the conditions of the sale proclamation he deposited the balance of 75 per cent in the treasury. This was on 14-9-1957.But unfortunately the purchaser, who did not engage or was advised by a legal practitioner and who, I am told, was illiterate as well, did not know the rules of court under which the receipt issued by the treasury should have to be lodged in court. Rule 158 of the Civil Rules of Practice provides for the payment of the purchase price into the bank or treasury, the receipt from which should be deposited in court. The appellant appears to have thought that the receipt was intended for his Own purposes.He did not put it into court. On 14-10-1957, the court, not havi...
M.V. Thiruvenkidaswami Mudaliar Vs. Palani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad291
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in A. S. No. & of 1957, in so far as they are against him. The suit was to recover a certain sum of money due under a promissory note Ex. A. 1 dated 16-3-1952, and executed by the first defendant. The second defendant is the daughter of the first defendant and had in her favour a deed of surrender, Ex. B. 1, dated 22-4-1954, and executed by her mother, in respect of certain properties which the first defendant was in possession of as the widow of her husband and certain other properties which belonged to the first defendant as her stridhanam properties. The first defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and also the consideration therefor. The defence of the second defendant was that the suit being on a promissory note, she was not a proper party to the suit and that in any case she could not be made liable for the debt due under the s...
G. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. Labour and Co. (Pte.) Ltd., Tiruchirapalli ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad358
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner as plaintiff sued for recovery of arrears of salary as well as leave salary due to him. He claimed to be a worker in a soda factory on a salary of Rs. 40 per month. Apparently he was suspended from work for some reason or other and without the settlement of his salary. He claimed such salary before the Labour Officer and in a statement made to the Labour Officer, the respondent, the factory, admitted that according to the accounts of the company, a sum of Rs. 277-2-6 was liable to be paid to the plaintiff.Thereafter the plaintiff sued the respondent company, and in addition to the arrears of salary, claimed to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 96, being leave salary he was eligible for. One of the issues that arose for determination by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli was whether the suit claim was barred by limitation. On this question the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Article 7 of the First Schedule to the Limitati...
N.V. Thiruvenkidaswami Mudaliar Vs. Palani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ224
Veeraswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in A.S. No. 8 of 1957 in so far as they are against him. The suit was to recover a certain sum of money due under a promissory note Exhibit A-1, dated 16th March, 1952 and executed by the first defendant. The second defendant is the daughter of the first defendant and had in her favour a deed of surrender Exhibit B-i, dated 22nd April, 1954 and executed by her mother, in respect of certain properties which the first defendant was in possession of as the widow of her husband and certain other properties which belonged to the first defendant as her stridhana properties. The first defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and also the consideration therefor. The defence of the second defendant was that the suit being on a promissory note, she was not a proper party to the suit and that in any case she could not be made liable for the debt ...
Dalooram JayanaraIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR379(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The assessee, a Hindu undivided family of which Dalooram Jayanarain was the karta, carried on extensive business in Madras. The business books of the assessee carried a credit of Rs. 75,000 in the name of Manbari, the wife of Dalooram Jayanarain. The assessee treated that as her money which the assessee had borrowed and invested in his business. Manbari was credited every year with interest on the loan. She died on May 19, 1945. On November 2, 1948, a sum of Rs. 31,000 out of what stood to her credit was transferred by Dalooram Jayanarain to the credit of the Dalooram Jayanarain Trust Account, and the balance, with which we are not concerned was left in the account of Manbari. The Dalooram Jayanarain Trust account was credited with interest year after year, calculated on the amount to the credit of the account. On April 5, 1951, Dalooram Jayanarain executed a registered deed of trust, annexure 'A'. The preamble in that document ran :'Whereas my wife, Manbari, who dies ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »