Chennai Court August 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.
N.V.S. Kadirvel Nadar Vs. the State of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1961
Reported in: [1962]46ITR251(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The petitioner is a firm owning a cardamom estate in Papanasam reserve forest in Tirunelveli district. It was assessed to tax under Madras Act (V of 1955) by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madurai, on March 30, 1957. Aggrieved by the decision of the officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madurai, who allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for re-fixing the tax. The order of the appellate authority is dated July 15, 1957. The petitioner thereupon moved the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Board of Revenue) by way of revision under section 34 of the Act by preferring the revision petition on July 14, 1958. The application was dismissed by the Commissioner on July 21, 1958. The following extract of the order discloses the reason for the dismissal :'The Commissioner is empowered to revise the orders of his subordinates under section 34 only within a...
In Re: Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ93
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The Petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 4A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also charged for an offence under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but he has been acquitted of the charge. The case for the prosecution was that at about 11-15 P.M. while a Mariamman festival was going on, the petitioner was found driving his car on a public road in a state of intoxication. It is not disputed that the petitioner had a permit issued in his favour. The trial Magistrate considered that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 proved the state of intoxication and that the car while on a public road must itself be regarded as a public place. On that view he found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 4A.2. P.W. 2 is a Head Constable and he asserted in his evidence that he found the petitioner driving his car and when he was stopped, t...
Gajalakshmi Ammal Manonmaniammal Bus Service Vs. the State Transport A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad173; (1962)1MLJ311
Ramachandra Iyer, Offg. C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, J., in W. P. No. 965 of 1959 declining to issue a rule nisi in a matter relating to the suspension of a motor stage carriage permit. The appellant is a proprietor of a bus service called Manonmani Amman Bus Service. She was granted a permit by the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot, for running a bus from Tiruvannamalai in North Arcot Dt. to Pondicherry. A part of the route lies in the South Arcot Dt. The permit granted to the appellant was therefore counter-signed by the Regional Transport authority of South Arcot.On 12-4-1959 the Sub-Inspector made a surprise check on the running bus. He found that there was an overload of the bus by three passengers. Before a check memo could be issued calling upon the appellant to submit her explanation, the anticipated the charge, made a written representation to the Regional Transport Officer that the complaint that the bus was overloaded on 12-4-19...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad243; (1962)1MLJ46
(1) This revision arises from the order of the District Munsif, Palni, in I. A. No. 706 of 1959 (O. S. No. 405 of 1957), refusing to issue a third party notice to Mariappa Pillai and Thangaraju. The petition was for the issue of third party notice under Order VIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendants in the suit instituted by Angammal, the first respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1285.40 nPs., from the petitioner herein as due to her on dealings.The petitioners (defendant's) pleaded that they had paid certain moneys to the husband of Angammal, one Mariappa Pillai, and claimed a pro tanto discharge of the suit claim. They followed up their written statement by filing the application under Order VIII-A C.P.C., for impleading Mariappa Pillai and his agent, Thangaraju as third party defendants, claiming that in case they were unable to prove that the payment made to those persons were binding on Angammal they would be entitled to an indemnity from those persons. The learne...
M. Abdul Salam and ors. Vs. Lourdusami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad386
1. These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Salem, in two petitions under Order 21, Rules 104 and 105 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These two petitions before the lower Court were to restore R.E.A. No. 1326 of 1956 and R.E.A. No. 648 of 1956 which were dismissed on 16th April, 1958, for non-prosecution. The petitioners before me who were the decree-holders before the District Munsif had obtained an order of eviction of the respondent from a building and they applied to the District Munsif for execution of that order for obtaining delivery of possession. These two petitions, one for recognising the assignment and the other for an order of delivery, came up before the District Munsif on a particular date. On that date the counsel for the decree-holder was not present. A request for adjournment till the counsel appeared was refused. The party was unable to go on with the proceeding and consequently, the District Munsif made...
M.P. Rm. Irulandi Mudaliar Vs. Syed Ibrahi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad326
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Munsiff of paramakudi declining to return two promissiory notes which were the subject matter of the suit before him for filing up the names of the payee. The promissiory notes were executed by one. Muhammad Ibrahim for sums borrowed at Rangoon. They are duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the indian stamp act. The prommissiory notes, however, did not bear the name of the payee; a space was left in blank for filing up the name and it is the petitioner' that he was authorised to fill in his name at any time that he chose; but due to mistake he omitted to fill in his name in the promissory notes before instituting the suit thereon. The suit was filed against the legal representative of the executant Muhammad Ibrahim as he had died by then. The petitioner realising that the payee's name had not been filled up applied to the court to return the two promissiory notes to him to enable him to fill the bl...
Kuppuswami and anr. Vs. Rangai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad383; (1962)1MLJ132
(1) This appeal arises from the judgment, and decree of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore reversing that of the District munsiff, Coimbatore, dismissing an execution petition, The facts are these:The respondent, the decree-holder, obtained, a money decree against one Nanjappa Gounden. This decree was passed on 11-12-1952. While this suit was pending, the sons of Nanjappa Gounder filed a partition suit, the preliminary decree in which was passed on 6-12-1962. It is not clear when this partition suit was filed. According to the learned District Munsif, it was filed on 1-6-1952, while according to the learned District Judge, it was filed on 21-7-1962. In any event, it is clear that a severance in status among the members of the joint Hindu family composed of Nanjappa Gounder, the judgment-debtor and his sons had become effective even before the date on which the decree-holder respondent obtained his money decree against Nanjappa Gounder. The respondent filed E. P. No. 201 of 1953 in ...
Compania Maritima International S.A. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ169
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was laid for the balance of freight due and for demurrage and interest on these sums under the following circumstances. The appellants were the owners of a steamship called Rio in which a consignment of goods was received by the Union Government at the Port of Madras. The charterers were liable for payment of the balance of the freight, but they did not pay the freight when the steamer arrived in the Port of Madras. Consequently the ship-owners refused to discharge the cargo and thereupon the Government of India gave an undertaking to pay the balance of freight due.2. The lower Court gave a decree for the sum claimed but disallowed interest for the period prior to 13th February, 1953 on balance of freight and demurrage. The reasoning of the lower Court was that interest was not payable because the principal sums claimed were not payable at a certain time and therefore interest was payable only from the date of demand.3....
The Archidiocese of Madras and anr. Vs. A. Batchamian Sahib and Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ150
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioners instituted Ejectment Suit No. 77 of 1958, in the Court of Small Causes. The learned Judge allowed the suit in so far as D. Nos. 1 and 2, Davidson Street, are concerned. In respect of another D. No. 1/3 of the same street, the view taken was that that was a lease of the land alone in consequence of which the respondent-defendant was entitled to the protection of the City Tenants' Protection Act. It is against the dismissal of the suit with regard to D. No. 1/3 that this Revision Petition has been filed.2. The principal argument advanced before me has been that whatever might have been the position previously, to which reference will shortly be made, in or about May, 1955, a new tenancy arrangement was entered into covering the entirety of D. Nos. 1 and 2 and D. No. 1/3, which apparently is only a part of that T.S. No. which forms D. No. 2. By reason of this new lease arrangement, it is claimed that this tenancy came into force not before the Act but subs...
M.P. Rm. Irulandi Mudaliar Vs. Syed Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ306
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against an order of the District Munsif of Paramakudi declining to return two promissory notes which were the subject-matter of the suit before him for filling up the name of the payee. The promissory notes were executed by one Muhammad Ibrahim for sums borrowed at Rangoon. They are duly stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. The promissory notes, however, did not bear the name of the payee; a space was left in blank for filling up the name and it is the petitioner's case that he was authorised to fill in his name at any time that he chose; but due to a mistake he omitted to fill in his name in the promissory notes before instituting the suit thereon. The suit was filed against the legal representatives of the executant, Muhammad Ibrahim as he had died by then. The petitioner realising that the payee's name had not been filled up applied to the Court to return the two promissory notes to h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »