Chennai Court June 1961 Judgments
N. Mohamad Shamveel Vs. Chelambukara Abdul Gafoor Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ363
Srinivasan, J.1. Though the point raised in this Revision Petition lies within a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out a few facts leading thereto. One Gaffoor Saheb became entitled to the property comprising of a cinema theatre and land appurtenant thereto. It had originally belonged to his deceased wife. On her death, Gaffoor Sahib became entitled to a fourth share and their son to three-fourths share. The son also having died, Gaffoor claims to have become the sole owner of the property. This property had been leased out by the original owner to three person including Gaffoor himself. Of the two other joint lessees, one died and under the circumstances stated, the surviving lessee became the sole successor-in-interest of the lease. It may be mentioned that the lease was for the period 1936 to 1946 and apparently the lessee is holding over.2. Gaffoor Sahib filed a petition for the eviction of the lessee. This was O.P. No. 37 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupathur...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sundaram Iyer Vs. Swaminatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ420
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This petition is to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O.P. No. 4 of 1959. This original petition was an unfiled appeal at the instance of the first defendant in a suit on a promissory note. A decree had been passed by the District Munsif and the first defendant appealed against that decree in forma pauperis. The Subordinate Judge, without complying with the provisions of Order 44, Rule 1(2), Civil Procedure Code, and satisfying himself that the decree was contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law or was otherwise erroneous or unjust, issued notice to the respondent. After the respondent appeared, the Subordinate Judge considered this question in the presence of the respondent and came to the conclusion that the decree appealed against was. neither contrary to law nor unjust. He also discussed the merits of the case put forward by the appellant and found no substance in them.2. Against the order dismissing the appeal, Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gunamani Vs. W.R. Stephen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ278
Srinivasan, J.1. The suit was laid by certain Christians claiming to belong to the London Mission Church seeking for a declaration that certain trust properties belonging to the London Mission were to enure only to the benefit of those Christians who belong to the London Mission and that the London Mission Christians who went over to join the Church of South India thereby became aliens, dissentitled to any right, interest or benefits of the properties referred to. The plaintiffs' further allegation in the plaint was that these defendants were in possession of the properties of the trust and that the defendants, having ceased to be members of the London Mission, were no longer entitled to be in possession. The plaintiffs sought to recover possession from these defendants together with future mesne profits.2. Even before filing a written statement the defendants filed I.A. No. 125 of 1960, praying for the rejection of the plaint and the dismissal of the suit. Apparently this prayer was b...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagaminatha Moopanar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1961
Reported in: [1964]52ITR591(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, OFFG. C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has submitted a further and revised statement of the case in compliance with our order dated December 3, 1959. For the proper appreciation of the questions arising in the case, it is necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts which have given rise to this reference. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family, carrying on business in yarn and cloth at Madurai. There was a branch for this business at Ramachandrapuram in Ramanathapuram District. One part of the business of the assessee was to export handloom products to Ceylon under permits granted by the Government. The practice observed in regard to such exports was to prepare invoices in duplicate and send the original to the foreign purchaser and the copy to the Chamber of Commerce at Madurai. The Chamber also maintains a record for the prevailing market prices at Ceylon of handloom goods manufactured and despeatched from Madurai.For the assessment year 1945-46 (the year ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Embaru Vs. the Chairman, Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ85
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the respondent, the Madras Port Trust, dated October 13, 1959, dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from July 20, 1959. The petitioner entered the service of the respondent in April, 1928, as an apprentice and was promoted in 1948 as a fitter. The Presidency Magistrate at George Town, Madras, by his order, dated July 20, 1959, convicted the petitioner of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the actual offence being that the petitioner cheated one Venugopal, the Chargeman, Foundary Shop inside the Madras Harbour, by inducing him to deliver a gun metal rod to him. But the learned Magistrate, instead of awarding punishment consequent upon the conviction, directed the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Madras Probation of Offenders Act, 1937, to be released on his own bond with a surety, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Jackiria Sahib Vs. Official Receiver, West Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad189
(1) This appeal is filed by the purchaser of the property from the insolvent against the order of the learned District Judge, West Tanjore, allowing the petition of the official receiver annulling the sale-deed in his favour.(2) The property was owned by the insolvent Balakrishna Naidu and his brother Kannan. They were running a coffee hotel in the property in question. But the business failed and Balakrishnan got himself involved in debts. He executed the impugned sale-deed for himself and as guardinan of his minor brother and minor sons to the appellant on 27-8-1956 for a sum of Rs. 32,000. The sale deed was registered on 24-9-1956 for adjudicating Balakrishna Naidu as insolvent on the ground that the sale-deed in question was an act of insolvency. Balakrishna Naidu was adjudged as an insolvent by an order 3-12-1956.(3) One S. L. Ct. Lakshmanan Chettiar, a creditor of the insolvent, obtained a decree against the insolvent for Rs. 600/- in S. C. No. 67 of 1955, on the file of the Sub-...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Desikachari and ors. Vs. the Proprietors of Associated Publishers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ285
S. Ramachandra Iyer, Officiating C.J.1. These Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to W.J. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1959 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and for quashing the orders passed thereon on 8th July, 1960, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for certain monetary compensation.2. The respondent is a private limited company, which owns and publishes 'THE MAIL', one of the premier English daily newspapers of Madras. P.S. Desikachari, C. Theobald and A. Krishnamurthi, the petitioners in the above petitions, were employed by the respondent as the Chief Reporter, Sports Editor, and Reporter respectively for the paper. Each one of them had put in more than 35 years of continuous service in the establishment; by the year 1956, they had attained respectively 62, 58 and 58 years of age. The relationship between the management and the petitioners during the entire period of service was ha...
Tag this Judgment!Balavantaraj Vs. Secretary, Home Dept. Govt. of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad265
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are related appeals from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in petitions before mm for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, raising certain important issues relating to the consequences of nationalisation of transport routes under un. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). More particularly stated, the issues were whether Section 68-G(2) of the Act, under which an otter of alternative routes could be made to those operators whose permits had been cancelled in implementation of a scheme of nationalisation, was or was not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; and further, whether the Government could issue specific directions to the State Transport authority under Section 43(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, directing the issue of alternative permits to such operators whose permits had been thus cancelled. We shall refer a little later, in detail, to the context of facts in...
Tag this Judgment!Venkalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Jagannathan (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad316
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. The main appeal (A. S. No. 93 of 1957) is by defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Court below in a suit by a minor represented by his next friend adoptive mother, instituted in forma pauperis for possession, and, alternatively, for partition of the suit properties. This appeal involves a question of considerable interest and significance, with reference to the Hindu Law of adoption as it stood prior to the recent enactments which have attempted a partial codification of the Hindu Law. That question, broadly stated, is whether, upon the theory of spiritual benefit, which is now the guiding principle in determining the validity of an adoption, the widow of a predeceased son (the daughter-in-law) could validly adopt to her husband, after the death of the father-in-law, who had himself left a widow alive on the date of the adoption. There is a related question whether, assuming such an adoption to be valid, the adopted heir (the minor plaintiff in this case) could upon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›