Chennai Court September 1960 Judgments
L.G. Lakshmana Iyer and ors. Vs. S. Pachiappa Mudaliar, a Firm of Clot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad342a; (1961)2MLJ75
Jagadisan, J.1. The respondent in this second appeal sued to recover from the appellants a sum of Rs. 995-4-8, alleged to be due on account of dealings which appellants had with him from 4-2-19S3 to 5-7-1954. As per the accounts of the respondent Rs. 582-6-6 was stated to be due by way of principal and Rs. 410-14-2 as interest. The suit filed by the respondent was O. S. No. 13 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Salem. The plaintiff is a firm of registered partnership carrying on business in handloom cloth in Salem town. Defendants 1 and 2 were also running a business in textiles and handloom cloth under, the name and style of Mysore L. G. Lakshmanier and Varadier in Salem Town.It appears that the defendants had also a branch of their business at Mysore; Pending the suit the second defendant died and defendants 4 to 8 were impleaded as his legal representatives. It is now common ground that a consignment of goods consisting of sarees of different varieties was made by ...
Tag this Judgment!Roy and Chatterjee (Private) Ltd. Vs. ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad367; (1961)2MLJ335
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision raises the question of the propriety of the dismissal of an application made under Order VIII-A C. P. C. The petitioner was the third defendant in a suit, O. S. No. 445 of 1953, on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. The plaintiff was constituted the agent by the Mysore Iron and Steel Works, Bhadravati, (first defendant) for the purpose of collecting 250 tons of scrap iron at Vishakapatnam from the Scindia Steam Navigation Co., who originally figured as the second defendant in the suit.The plaintiff was carrying on business at Madras. He, in his turn, made the third defendant, who was carrying on business at Vishakhapatnam, his agent for taking delivery of the scrap iron from the second defendant and forwarding it to the Mysore Iron and Steel Works at Bhadravati. The third defendant took delivery from the second defendant and passed a receipt for full delivery of the 250 tons. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the delivery was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Alagarswami Kone Vs. T.J. Andhoni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad293; (1961)1MLJ158
Jagadisan, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal claims compensation, for the value of the superstructure erected by him on a vacant site in which he was let into possession under certain terms and conditions, invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel as enunciated in Ramsden v. Dyson, (1865) 1 H.L. 129,2. C. A. Subramania lyer obtained an assignment of a bit of property from the Ramnad Samas-thanam as it was before the enactment of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. As owner of the property Subramania Aiyer let into possession Alagiriswami Kone enabling him to occupy an extent of 1-1/2 cents on his paying a monthly rental of Rs. 3. Alagirisami put up a hut in the year 1946 and conducted a grocery business therein.In 1948, according to Alagirisami, there was an agreement between him and Subramania lyer under which he was allowed to build a pucca masonry structure, on the demised land at his own cost with 4definite promise on the part of Subramania lyer not (to evict him so long as ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayyad Ahmed Ali Vs. Bhageerathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad301; (1961)2MLJ72
Jagadisan, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether the document dated 6-12-1113, Ex. A, in the case is a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale with an option to repurchase.2. The circumstances under which this document came to be executed are not in dispute. The defendant in the suit O. S. No. 577 of 1950 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Nager-coil, obtained a decree against the plaintiff in O. S. No. 820 of 1112 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil, for recovery of a sum of money. The plaintiff in this suit made an application before the Debt Conciliation Board in C. A. 138 of 1113 for an amicable settlement of all his debts under the provisions of an enactment prevailing in Travancore. It appears, though there is no specific evidence on the point, that the Debt Conciliation (Board brought about a settlement of the debt and in pursuance of an arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant in consonance with the decis...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Vadamalayan, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad485
1. The assessee, a leading surgeon of Madurai with a lucrative practice, undertook a tour abroad in 1953, in the course of which he visited a number of hospitals and clinics in the United States of America and the United Kingdom to study the latest technique in surgery and treatment. The tour cost him RS. 19,538, the whole of which he claimed as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, in computing 1m assessable income in the assessment year 1934-55. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim in its entirety.He held that the expenditure was of a capitil nature, incurred by the assessee to secure to him-self a benefit of an enduring nature. The Assistant Commissioner differed and found that no portion of the expenditure was of a capital nature. He, however, held that only one-half of the expenditure satisfied the test of having been wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the asses-see's profession. The other half was treated as the personal expenses of the...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruveriamuthu Pillai Alias B.T. Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council, She ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad230
1. This second appeal arises out of an action in tort filed by the owner of a dog against a Municipal Corporation which killed the dog through its servant in purported exercise of its statutory power.2. B.T. Pillai a resident of Ariyannalloor street in Shencottah owned a young dog of Fox Terrier Species worth about Rs. 50. On 20-12-1954, the dog was out On the street accompanied by a servant of B.T. Piilai. One of the employees of the municipal Council of Shenottah killed it. U.T. Pillai complained to the Municipal Counci that his dog was killed by its employee unlawfully in spite of warning given to the employee by his own servant not to kill it.B.T. Pillai submitted in that complaint that the 'killing of his dog was illegal, high-handed and unjustifiable' that the incident caused him not merely financial loss but also mental anguish and that unless he was given redress adequately by the Municipality he would be constrained to sue it in a court of law for damages.3. To this the Munici...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaram Pillai Velayudham Pillai Represented by Next Friend Neela ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad345
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of a suit O.S. No. 194 of 1122 M. E. by the temporary Additional District Judge, Nagarcoil. The suit was instituted by the appellant Velayudhan Pillai represented by his next friend Neelamma Pilla Lakshmi Pilla because ho was of unsound mind. The sole defendant Narayana Pillai alias Kesavan Pillai as the respondent in this appeal. Kochu Pilla and Bhagavati Pilla were two sisters. The plaintiff is the son of Kochu Pilla and the defendant the son of Bhagavathi Pilla. Kochu Pilla has also a daughter Lakshmi Pilla who died on 10th July, 1120 M. E. Kochu Pilla herself had died a year earlier in 1119 M. E.It is common ground that on the date of the suit the plaintiff was of unsound mind. There is no reliable evidence as to when exactly be became of unsound mind but admittedly he was not con-genitally insane. For the purpose of the appeal it can be taken that the plaintiff became insane sometime in 1096 or 1097 M. E. There were two sc...
Tag this Judgment!Parameswaram Pillai Velayudham Pillai (Being of Unsound Mind Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ358
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of a suit O.S. No. 194 of 1122 M.E. by the temporary Additional District Judge of Nagarcoil. The suit was instituted by the appellant Velayudhan Pillai represented by his next friend Neelamma Pilla Lekshmi Pilla because he was of unsound mind. The sole defendant Narayana Pillai alias Kesavan Pillai is the respondent in this appeal. Kochu Pilla and Bhagavathi Pilla were two sisters. The plaintiff is the son of Kochu Pilla and the defendant the son of Bhagavathi Pilla. Kochu Pilla had also a daughter Lekshmi Pilla who died on ioth July, nao M.E. Kochu Pilla herself had died a year earlier in 1119 M.E. It is common ground that on the date of the suit the plaintiff was of unsound mind. There is no reliable evidence as to when exactly he became of unsound mind but admittedly he was not congenitally insane. For the purpose of the appeal it can be taken that the plaintiff became insane some time in 1096 or 1097 M.E. There were tw...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruvariamuthu Pillai Alias B.T. Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ279
Jagadisan, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out: of an action in tort filed by the-owner of a dog against a Municipal Corporation which killed the dog through its-servant in purported exercise of its statutory power.2. B.T. Pillai a resident of Ariyanalloor Street in Shencottah owned a young dog of Fox Terrier Species worth about Rs. 50. On 20th December, 1954, the dog was out on the street accompanied by a servant of B.T. Pillai. One of the employees of the Municipal Council of Shencottah killed it. B.T. Pillai complained to the Municipal Council that his dog was killed by its employee unlawfully inspite of warning given to the employee by his own servant not to kill it. B.T. Pillai submitted in that complaint that the ' killing of his dog was illegal, high handed and unjustifiable ', that the incident caused him not merely financial loss but also mental anguish and that unless he was given redress adequately by the Municipality he would be constrained to sue it in a Court of law for da...
Tag this Judgment!Saradambal Vs. Seethalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad108
ORDER(1) T. O. S. No. 3 of 1959 was disposed of by me after the withdrawal of contest by the defendant. The plaintiff in the suit has applied for refund of court-fee paid on the plaint when the application was converted into a suit.(2) A fixed fee of Rs. 25 was paid when the proceeding was instituted as a original petition as required by Art. 11(K) of Sch. II of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. When a caveat was entered the proceeding was converted into a suit under Or. XXV of the Original Side Rules, and thereupon court-fee was demanded in accordance with the proviso to Art. 11(K) of Sch. II of the Madras Court-fees Act and ad valorem court-fee to the extent of one-half of the scale of fee prescribed in Art 1 of Sch I of the Court-fees Act on the market value of the estate, less the fee already paid on the application, was collected. It is this fee that was levied and collected which is sought to be refunded by the present application.(3) Counsel for the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »