Chennai Court April 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.
Shanmugha Rajeswara Sethupathi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karaikudi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1961
Reported in: [1962]44ITR853(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - In W.P. Nos. 343, 391 to 396 and 418 of 1960, the ex-zamindar of Ramnad is the petitioner. He prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, and to quash the orders of assessment made by that officer for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1955-56, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 in respect of certain receipts of the petitioner by way of interim payments provided for in the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). W.P. No. 849 of 1960 is directed against a notice of demand issued under section 29 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to pay advance tax under section 18A(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1960-61.In the remaining writ petitions - W.P. Nos. 419 to 424 and 1236, 1237 of 1960 - the ex-zamindar of Sivaganga is the petitioner. He prays for writs of prohibition as the assessments in those cases have not yet proceeded beyond the stage of the issue of noti...
Balakrishna Mehat Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad7
(1) When this appeal came up for hearing before the Division Bench, the learned Judges felt that the earlier decision of this court in Madurai Municipality v. Muthuswami Chettiar, , took a view of the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act which they were inclined to dissent from. Accordingly, this appeal has been posted before this Full Bench for disposal.(2) The principal question that arises in this appeal is whether the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the question of the increase in value or the likelihood of increase in value or the likelihood of increase in value of any properties involved in a town planning scheme by the making of that scheme. Even at the outset we may preface our discussion by stating that the Division Bench which decided , held that there is no provision in the Town Planning Act, as to who should decide the important question whether any property has increased in value or is likely to increase in value by the making of the town planning scheme. It...
In the Matter Of: A.R. Sivaramakrishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad75; [1961]31CompCas539(Mad); (1961)2MLJ494
Ganapatia Pillai, J. (1) This is a detor's insovency portion under Ss. 10, 14 and 15 of the Presidency Towns Insovency Act for adjudication of the applicant. When the proceeding originally came up before the Master he passed an order directing the matter to be placed before the Insolvency Judge since the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application was raised by the Official Assignee which is not settled by any authoritative decision of this court. When the matter came up before the Insolvency Judge (one of us) it was found that there was a conflict between the view taken by Ramaswami, J., in Thangia v. Hanuman Bank Ltd., AIR 1958 Mad 403 following certain decisions of the Orissa High Court and the view taken by Ramachandra Iyer, J., in Shenoy v. Rathunath, ILR 1959 Mad 715 regarding the scope and effect of Secs. 45-A and 45-B of the Indian Banking Companies Act as amended in 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereupon at the instance of one of us th...
R. Gangapathi Pillai Vs. P.A. Irudayasamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad345
ORDER(1) The petitioner is the plaintiff. He sued to recover an amount which he claimed was due to him in respect of certain constructions which he had put up on the premises leased to him by the defendant respondent. The premises is a mill and it is not denied by the defendant that he had agreed to put up certain additional constructions thereon. Subsequently, however, the plaintiff was permitted by the defendant to put up the constructions at his own expense on the promise that he would he reimbursed therefor. When finally that amount was not so paid, the plaintiff brought the matter to court. In the plaint, he specifically pleaded art agreement whereunder the defendant had agreed to pay the value of these structures. The learned Subordinate judge, while he found against the contention of the defendant that it was he himself who had put up these contentions, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the specific agreement set up by him, and that agreement failing,...
M. Ct. Muthuraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1961
Reported in: [1963]50ITR656(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The assessee, Muthuraman and his uncle, Meyyappa, constituted a Hindu undivided family. One of the assets of that family was a 15/21 share in a partnership at Ipoh with the vilasam M. S. S. On December 29, 1948, Muthuramans branch divided itself from Meyyappas and, in the partial partition that followed, the share in the M.S.S. Firm was divided between Muthuraman and Meyyappa.Though Muthuramans status for purposes of assessment was itself that of a Hindu undivided family, for purpose of convenience, we shall refer to him in the rest of this judgment as the assessee. We shall refer to the joint family which included the branch of the assessee and his uncle, Meyyappa, as the Hindu undivided family.In the assessment years that followed the partial partition of December 29, 1948, that is, 1949-50 and 1950-51, the assessee and Meyyappa each filed returns showing his share in income from the M.S.S. Firm. But the Income-tax Officer declined to give effect to that partition an...
B. Sivanandy Vs. P. Bhagavathy Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad400
(1) In O. S. No. 66 of 1956, on the file of the Court of the principal Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil one Bhagavathyamma sued her husband Sivanandy for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties belong to Velar community governed, by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. The plaintiff alleged that she was married to the defendant on 13th panguni 1119 M. E according to Hindu shastraic rights. The plaintiff was a mere girl 13 years old at the time of the alleged marriage. She had not attained puberty at that time. The defendant was also a minor on the alleged date of marriage aged, about 15 years or 16 years According to the plaintiff after she attained the age the marriage was consummated and a nuptial ceremony was performed, and that she was living with the defendant in his house for about a month or so. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the, defendant was not prepared to live with her and that therefore she had to live away from him in her present's house.(2) The defendant resisted t...
Board of Revenue, Madras Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Mad504; (1961)2MLJ538
Jagadisan, J.1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue, Madras, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, raising the Question of the chargeability of the proper stamp duty in respect of a document dated 5-9-1954, which came under the purview of the revenue authorities under the following circumstances.2. Nidamurthy Narasimham and Surayya are divided brothers who were parties to a transaction embodied in writing and dated 5-9-54. Narasimham one of the executants of the said document presaited ' it to the Collector of Madras for assessment and levy of the stamp duty payable for that document. The Collector impounded the document under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, and calling upon Narasimham to file an affidavit explaining the various items of transactions referred to in the document which, On the face of the document, looked obscure and cryptic. Narasimham filed an affidavit dated 25-2-1955 the contents of which were not really helpful...
Meenakshisundara Gramani Vs. A.D. Ramachandra Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ10
Srinivasan, J.1. This petition raises the question of limitation under the following circumstances. The decree was made in M.S.C. No. 5942 of 1942 on 22nd January, 1943. By reason of Ordinance V of 1953, leading up to Act I of 1955, the decree-holder was disabled from executing the decree till 1st July, 1955. On the date on which the 12 years period of limitation prescribed by Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code expired, i.e., 22nd January, 1955, these moratorium Acts were in force. Subsequently, an execution petition was filed whereunder an order for the arrest of the judgment-debtor was made. As against this order, there was a new trial application which was finally dismissed on 10th September, 1956. The decree-holder claimed that both by virtue of the moratorium Acts and the stay granted in the new trial application, his prior execution petition E.P. No. 687 of 1957 was in time. It may be mentioned that an application for the transmission of the decree was filed on 12th February,...
Kuppanna Gounder and ors. Vs. Peruma Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ65
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This reference arises out of petitions filed under Article 133 of the Constitution for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decree and judgment of this Court in A.S. Nos. 286 and 376 of 1955. The judgment of this Court affirmed that of the trial Court. It has been found that the appeal involves the determination of a substantial question of law. All that remains to be ascertained is whether the subject-matter of dispute in the Court of the first instance and still in dispute in the appeal was and continues to be not less than Rs. 20,000.2. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was valued by respondents 1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs at Rs. 9,650. They succeeded in the Court of the first instance. When the petitioners, (defendants in the suit) filed appeals to this Court, they adopted that value, as indeed they were bound to do, for the purpose of payment of the necessary Court-fee for the appeals. Petitioners now state that the aforesaid...
Sri Rajah Jagaveera Rama Muthukumara Venkataswara Ettappa Naicker Ayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ20
Srinivasan, J.1. The Ettayapuram Zamin estate was notified under Act (XXVI of 1948) with effect from 3rd January, 1951. The Zamindar moved the High Court by a writ petition challenging the validity of the above Act. His petition failed. He carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. There too he failed. The Government took over possession of the estate on 26th September, 1954.2. Thereafter, the Zamindar filed a Petition under the above Act before the Assistant Settlement Officer claiming that at the time the Government notified and took over possession of the estate, they included certain villages which were not part of the Zamindari but were really inam villages. He accordingly moved the Assistant Settlement Officer seeking to have determined the nature of 88 villages which, according to him, were not part of the permanently settled estate of Ettayapuram but were really inam estates coming within the meaning of Section 2(7) of Act, XXVI of 1948.3. These 88 villages fall into tw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »