Chennai Court November 1961 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.
Thangavelu Vs. Arumugha Pandithar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ24
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Revision Petition is filed by a tenant of the respondent. The tenant filed an application for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of Act (XXIV of 1956). The application was posted before the Rent Court for 21st December, 1958. The landlord was absent on that date, and the Court, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the tenant, fixed the fair rent ex parte. The landlord thereupon filed an application under Rule 4 (g) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Rules, 1956, for setting aside the ex parte order. The Rent Court declined to set aside the ex parte order, as it was not satisfied that the landlord was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in Court. The landlord thereupon took up the matter in appeal to the Rent Tribunal, which came to a different conclusion. It held that there was sufficient excuse for the landlord to be absent on the date of the hearing, and accordingly set aside the ex parte order, fi...
In Re: Sankaranarayana Rengan Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ697; (1962)2MLJ256
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is against the order of the Additional District Magistrate II, Tirunelveli in M.C. No. 1 of 1961 extraditing the petitioner for offences of criminal misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust under Section 3(4) of the Extradition Act.2. The learned Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection that the Order of the Additional District Magistrate II, Tirunelveli, could not be revised by this Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. His contention is that after a Magistrate finds that a prima facie case has been made out, he should only make a report : to the Government under Section 3(6) of the Act and it is for the Central Government to decide whether the fugitive offender should be surrendered or not. He relied on the decision in Rudolf Stallmann v. Emperor I.L.R.(1911) Cal. 547 where it was held that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Charter Act to revise the proceedings of a Magis...
Sri Thiagarajaswami Devastanam Represented by Its Sole and Hereditary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ394
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff Sri Thiagarajaswami Devastanam by its hereditary trustee Sri La Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannadhi against the judgment of the District Judge of East Tanjore dismissing its suit for a claim of Rs. 6,749-10-9 against the defendants and for a charge against certain items of properties.2. The first defendants and one Subbiah Thevar now deceased, took on lease 51 acres, 78 cents of lands belonging to the plaintiff-Devastanam on 28th December, 1944. The lease was for a period of five years and the properties specified in the schedule to the plaint belonged to Subbiah Thevar and were given as security for the due payment of the rent and for fulfilment of the other conditions of the lease. The extent of security was limited to one year's lease, that is Rs. 2,100. Defendants 2 and 3 are Subbiah Thevar's son's widows. Defendant 4 is Subbiah Thevar's son's adopted son. Defendant 5 is the wife of the first defendant and def...
Subbai Goundar Vs. Nachimuthu Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ307
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a petition to quash the order of the Election Commissioner Udumalpet, setting aside the election of the petitioner as President of the Ammandakadavu Panchayat Board on 23rd July, 1959. The Board consists of 13 members of whom the petitioner as well as the first respondent were proposed as candidates for the presidentship at the meeting of the Panchayat Board on 23rd July, 1959, which took place in Ammapatti District Board Elementary School building. The petitioner secured six votes and the first respondent five votes with the result that the former was declared elected as President of the Board. The first respondent impugned the election by an election petition filed before the Election Commissioner on three grounds; two of which found favour with the Election Commissioner, who, as a result, set aside the election. The aggrieved petitioner has, therefore, come up to this Court.2. The first ground which found favour with the Election Commissioner was based ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jagannatha Govindas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ57
Srinivasan, J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for municipal tax paid was an allowable expenditure under Section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act?2. The assessee is the owner of the property known as the Maharani Talkies. He leased out this property together with the cinema equipment, machinery and furniture. During the assessment year 1955-56, the sum realised by this lease was Rs. 26,295. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,870, being the municipal tax paid for this property. His request that the income should be assessed as income from business was rejected. The Department proceeded to assess this income under Section 12 of the Act as income from other sources. Certain allowances such as for fire insurance and depreciation were allowed. On the disallowance of this item of expenditure, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer in this regard. On...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Jagannatha Govindas.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1961
Reported in: [1962]45ITR61(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question referred to us :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim for municipal tax paid was allowable expenditure under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is the owner of the property known as the Maharani Talkies. He leased out this property together with the cinema equipment, machinery and furniture. During the assessment year 1955-56, the sum realised by this lease was Rs. 26,295. The assesses claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,870, being the municipal tax paid for this property. His request that the income should be assessed as income from business was rejected. The department proceeded to assess this income under section 12 of the Act as income from other sources. Certain allowances such as for fire insurance and depreciation were allowed. On the dis-allowance of this item of expenditure, the assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer in this regard. On fur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›