Chennai Court February 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.
T.L. Jagannatha Iyer Vs. B.H. Krishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad99; (1961)2MLJ509
Ramachandra Iyer, J.(1) This revision petition raises the question whether making reference to the existence of certain antecedent or collateral proceedings and the reservation of rights in regard to the same in a petition accompanying a deposit under O. 21, R. 89, C.P.C. Could be said to make the deposit otherwise than an unconditional one. The auction purchaser who resisted the application to set aside the sale is the petitioner. In E. P. No. 570 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai taluk, the decree holder applied in execution of a small cause decree, for attachment and sale of a certain immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. Execution was resisted on the ground that the decree had been previously satisfied. An application, E. A. No. 1430 of 1956, was also filed to record satisfaction of the decree. The latter application dismissed for default of appearance and execution was directed on the former. An application was then filed to restore E. A. No. 143...
Alagi Alamelu Achi Vs. Ponniah Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad149; (1962)1MLJ383
(1) This second appeal by the first defendant arises out of a suit for a declaration of the respondent's title and for an injunction against the appellant in respect of the suit properties. Both the courts below have concurrently found that plaintiffs are not entitled to the properties. They have also held that the plaintiffs have not acquired title to the properties by adverse possession. Nevertheless, the lower appellate court, differing from the trial court, considered that the fact that plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit properties, since 1939 would entitle them to an injunction against the first defendant. The reasoning of the lower appellate court for that view is stated thus:'It is true that a person in wrongful possession can maintain his possession against all the world except the real owner can take the law into his own hands and enter upon the property and dispossess the person in wrongful possession there-of by force. The proposition means that the person in wron...
V. S. Arulanandam Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR511(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN Offg. C.J. - The petitioner and Murugan were part numbers each with a half share in the firm of Messrs. Murugan Arulanadam and Co., which carried on business at Tuticorin. The petitioner himself was resident of Ceylon. The Income-tax officer refused registration of that firm for the assessment year 1951-52 also, as he had refused it in the previous years from 1949-50. The Income-tax officer completed the assessment for 1951-52 on November 11, 1954. It was the unregistered firm that was assessed. The only source of income of the petitioner in the taxable territories was his share of the profits of the firm. He filed a separate return, wherein he claimed that he was a non-resident. On February 24, 1955, the Income-tax Officer closed the individual assessment of the petitioner. The petitioner was treated as resident and ordinarily resident, as against his claim that he was a non-resident. There was, however, no assessment of tax and it was treated as a case of 'no demand', bec...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Janab A. P. Mohamed Noohu and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR88(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN OFFG. C.J. - Since, in opinion, the Tribunal was right in the conclusion it reached, that requirements of section 4A(a)(ii) were not satisfied and that the assessee did not in either of the two years in question maintain a dwelling house within the taxable territories and that he did not have a dwelling house maintained for him either, we see justification to direct the reference that the Department seeks under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act.The assessee was a resident of Ceylon. He was one of the heirs of his father and was thus in the position of a co-tenant of the house that devolved on all the heirs. But it was his brother and one of his sisters with their families that actually occupied the house. It was their dwelling house, and they did not maintain it as a dwelling house for the assessee. The assessees wife and children lived with her father, and he obviously maintained his house only for himself and not for the assessee. The assessee had nothing to do with the...
S. Santosha Nadar Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR715(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, OFFG. C.J. - The petitioner who was a resident of Tirunelveli District carried on business in Ceylon. The petitioner did not file any returns of his income in the assessment years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 in response to the general notice published under section 22(1) of the Income-tax Act. But he voluntarily filed returns for all the three years on March 20, 1954. With reference to the assessment year 1945-46, the Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 34 of the Act with a notice dated March 25, 1954, which was served on the petitioner on March 29, 1954. The assessment for 1945-46 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on March 5, 1955, under section 34 read with section 23(4). The assessments for 1946-47 and 1947-48 were without recourse to section 34. The assessment for 1946-47 was completed under section 23(3) on March 5, 1955. The assessment for 1947-48, which was under section 23(4), was completed on March 26, 1956.Against these assessment orders...
M. Thirumalachariar Vs. S.P. Varadappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad210; (1961)2MLJ502
(1) This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600 alleged to be due form him to the commercial Funds Ltd. Kancheepuram. The defendant was a subscriber to a chit conducted by the funds. He took in auction a chit for Rs. 5000 payable in 100 monthly installments of Rs.50 each. The first instalment was due on March 14, 1947, and the last was payable on May 14, 1951. Admittedly, the defendant paid all the installments due upto September 14, 1949, but he failed to due pay the subsequent installments. The funds were directed by this court in O. P. No. 309 of 1949 to be wound up.The official Receiver who was appointed as the Officials liquidator for realising the outstandings of the funds sold the outstanding, due to funds, to the plaintiff, the respondent in the present second appeal by means of a sale deed dated May 17, 1954. The plaintiff, a s such assignee, claimed to be entitled to realise the amount chimed in the suit. According to him althoug...
Associated Printers (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1961
Reported in: [1961]43ITR281(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, OFFG. C.J. - The Associated Publishers Ltd., to which we shall refer hereafter as the predecessor company, carried on the business till January 31, 1950. It was transferred to the assessee company which continued the business from February 1, 1950, without any break. Both were private companies, and a third company, Amalgamations Ltd., was the principal shareholder of both. The year of account of that business ended on January 31 each year. When the business changed hands on February 1, 1950, the claim of the workmen for Deepavali bonus for 1949 was the subject of an industrial dispute pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Tribunal, directing the grant of bonus of one and a half months basic wages to each of the workmen, was published on February 9, 1951. The assessee company was a party to that award. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act provided for the enforcement of the award against the...
S.M. Kanniappa Nadar Vs. K.K. Karuppiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad240
(1) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellant for the dissolution of a partnership known as Sarada Match Works at Ramalingpuram in Ramnathpuram Dt for taking of accounts and payment of what is found due to him by the respondent; alternatively to direct the latter to pay the former a sum of Rs. 7630-11-0 with subsequent interest. The facts which give rise to the claim are these : The respondent who had obtained a licence under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of safety matches under the name Sarada Match Works, Ramalingapuram. On 11-7-1955, the respondent admitted the appellant as a partner in the business which both agreed to run for a minimum period of six years. The agreement which was reduced to writing on 16-7-1955, expressly stipulated that the partners were to obtain an amendment of the existing licence in favour of one of them in their joint names and that the appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›