Chennai Court July 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.
D. Subbiah Alias Devarayan Chettiar Vs. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad223; [1963]33CompCas29(Mad); (1962)1MLJ372
(1) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, disposing of two suits, O. S. No. 7 of 1952 and O. S. No. 20 of 1952. O. S. No. 7 of 1952 out of which A. S. No. 154 of 1956 arises was instituted by one Annapoorni Achi for recovery of money due to her on a deposit voucher executed by the first defendant as one of the partners of a money lending Nattukottai Chettiar firm of Palladam. She died during the pendency of the suit and her adopted son has been brought on record as the second plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 along with the father of Annapoorni Achi above mentioned were the partners of the Palladam firm.(2) The case in the plaint was that Stridhanam and Seermural money belonging to Annapoorni Ache was originally deposited with two firms and subsequently in 1921 the money came to the deposited with the Palladam firm (YPRL, firm). Fourth defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant and the fifth defendant is the undivided ...
D. Subbiah Alias Devarayan Chettiar Vs. A. Pr. L. Alagappa Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ430
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment of-the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai disposing of two suits OS No 7 of 1952 and O.S. No. 7 of 1952 out of which A.S. No. 154 of 1956 arises was instituted by one Annapoorani Achi for recovery of money due to her on a deposit voucher executed by the first defendant as one of the partners of a money-lending Nattukottai Ghettiar Firm of Palladam. She died during the pendency of the suit and her adopted son has been brought on record as the second plain iff. Defendants 1 to 3 along with the father of Annapoorani Achi above mentioned were the partners of the Palladam Firm.2. The case in the plaint was that Stridhanam and Seermurai money belonging to Annapoorani Achi was onginaly deposited with two firms, and subsequentlv in 1921 the money came to be deposited with the Palladam Firm (Y. PRL FIRM) fourth defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant and the fifth defendant is the undivided son of the t...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1961
Reported in: 1964CriLJ243
Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for an offence under Sees. 7 and 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. On 22-10-1960, at about 9 a.m. the accused brought milk in three cans to the Government Hospital at Srivaikuntam. The three cans were placed before the Medical Officer for check. P. W. 1 purchased 3/8 measures from the accused out of one of the cans. The accused told that the milk was a mixture of cow and buffalows milk. P. W. 1 paid 0.42 no and obtained a receipt, Ex. P-l, attested by the doctor and his maistry, who were present at the time of sampling. P. W. 1 also explained that some independent people, who were also present, refused to attest. P. W. 1 divided the sample in three equal parts and sent one for analysis. The analyst sent a report, Ex. P-3, according to which, the sample contained 4.3% of fat and 6.8% of solids-not-fat. The sample contained' 24...
T. Balakrishna Mehta Vs. the State of Madras Represented by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ167
S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. This Civil Revision Pettion raises a question under Section 3(5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as to whether the State Government would be liable to pay rent in respect of a building required by them for the occupation of their officers but possession of which was not given by the owner thereof. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 38-B, Mount Road, Madras. The-Burmese Consul who was occupying the building vacated it on 5th August, 1955, the owner of the building gave notice of the vacancy to the Accommodation Controller, but he intimated also by the same notice that the building was in a bad state and required immediate repairs not in a fit condition for occupation. The owner also requested the Accomodation Controller not to allot the building to anyone. The Accommodation Controller, however, did not agree to the owner's request but allotted the building to the Regional Savings Officer, Madras, with effect from 23rd Au...
Pannalal Jagannath Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ426
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to have G.O. Ms. No. 705, Home, dated 19th March, 1958 quashed which, in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, exempted premises Nos. 140/2, Audiappa Naicken Street and 17/1, Anna Pillar Street, G.T., Madras, from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act. The petitionei avers in his affidavit that the building No. 140/2, Audiappa Naicken Street, is a nonresidential one, and this is not in dispute, and he has been in occupation thereof for over 30 years. He further alleges that at the time of the occupation, the building was an old dilapidated one and he had to reconstruct it himself at enormous cost, and that he had installed an electric coffee roaster and two electric coffee grinders. The 2nd respondent, who was his employee, purchased the building from its owner on nth July, 1955. Although the 2nd respondent is occupying five stores for purp...
V. Rajaram Vs. Ramanujam Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad213
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff in the suit out of which it arises'. The suit was brought by the appellant against a number of defendants who are all respondents here for the main relief of recovery of possession of properties alleged to belong to a choultry. There were two schedules attached to the, plaint. Schedule A contained the site and the building of the choultry founded by one Veerappa the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. Schedule B to the plaint contains a list of properties, all lands, endowed by this Veerappa for the maintenance and upkeep of the said choultry founded by him. Veerappa executed a gift deed in 1887 for this creation of this endowment and also provided by that deed for succession of managers for the institution. He indicated that he would be manager during his lifetime, and after him his son and sons' heirs should manage the endowments, receive income from B schedule lands and keep up the charity by maintaining the ser...
A. Ramaswami Ayyangar Vs. State of Madras (Education Department) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad387; (1963)ILLJ56Mad
ORDER(1) The application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing certain orders under which the services of the petitioner (A. Ramaswami Aiyangar) were dispensed with by the management of the St. Andrews Higher Elementary School, Manapparai (third respondent) involves certain issues of interest.The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a headmaster of the third respondent school on 9-6-1947. Charges were first framed against him on certain disciplinary grounds, on 9-1-1956. Certain of these charm were cancelled and recast, and fresh charges were issued on 3-3-1956. Subsequently, the petitioner was reduced as an Assistant in the same school with effect from 8-3-1956. The petitioner appealed to the District Educational Officer, Tiruchi on 26-3-1956. On 10-7-1956, the Manager of the institution framed, charges upon other facts. and asked the petitioner to submit an explanation to them on or before 15-7-1956. Admittedly, the petitioner wrote on 13-7-1956 wanting some furthe...
A. Ramaswami Ayyangar Vs. State of Madras (Educational Department), Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ269
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This application for the issue of a writ otceriorari for quashing certain orders under which the services of the petitioner (A. Ramaswami Ayyangar) were dispensed with by the Management of the St. Andrews Higher Elementary School, Manapparai (third respondent) involves certain issues of interest. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Headmaster of the third respondent school on 9th June, 1947. Charges were first framed against him on certain disciplinary grounds on 9th January, 1956. Certain of these charges were cancelled and recast, and fresh charges were issued on 3rd March, 1956. Subsequently, the petitioner was reduced as an Assistant in the same school with effect from 8th March, 1956. The petitioner appealed to the District Educational Officer, Trichy, on 26th March, 1956. On 10th July, 1956, the Manager of the institution framed charges upon other facts, and asked the petitioner to submit an explanation to them on or before 15th July, 1956....
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.M.M. Mohammad Ibrahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ399
Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. The Tribunal has submitted a revised statement of the case recording its finding that the assessee had a controlling interest in the non-resident company to which he transferred the entire assets and goodwill of his proprietary concern. It has also found that the shares standing in the names of his sons in the company were genuinely allotted to them, that subsequent to the formation of the company, the sons have been enjoying the dividends from the company with respect to such shares and that no benefit accrued to the assessee in respect of the income received by the sons. It has further held that even if the assessee's transfer of his assets to the non-resident company is held to come within the purview of Section 44-D(1) and Clauses (5) and (6) thereof, such a transfer should be held to be saved from the operation of the provisions of the section by Sub-clause (3) as it was a bona fide commercial transaction falling within Clauses (a) and (b) thereto.2. We ...
Govindammal Vs. Chidambara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad215
Jagadisan, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the lawfully wedded wife of the respondent. She Bled the suit for the recovery of maintenance, past and future, against her husband, O. S. No. 133 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, and obtained a decree in the following terms: 1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 150 per mensem for her future maintenance from 9-9-1948 the date of plaint; 2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 3480 as arrears of maintenance for 3 years prior to the date of suit; 3. that the plaintiff is entitled to reside in family house at Kaniyambadi which is item No. 1 in the schedule of properties given hereunder; 4. that the properties given in the schedule hereunder be a charge for the decree amount; and 5. that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff her costs of suit Rs. 636-7-0with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum front this date till realisation.2. The appellant ex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »