Chennai Court January 1962 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.
V. Vasudeva Bhat Vs. the Revenue Officer, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ7
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The respondent who is the Revenue Officer, Madras Corporation, by a notice of his, dated 22nd July, 1959, called upon the petitioner to remove from his shop an advertisement within a specified time and to pay a tax of Rs. 13 for having exhibited the advertisement upto 30th June, 1959. The respondent in the notice, averred that the petitioner had unauthorisedly erected decorative advertisement boards and banners in front of his shop which was not exclusively intended for sale of cigarettes and thereby committed an offence under Section 129-A of the Madras City Municipal Act. The petitioner was threatened with penal action in default of compliance with the requirements of the notice. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is for quashing the notice or in the alternative for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent from enforcing the terms of the notice. Two photographs of the front appearance of the shop with the part...
N. Vs. T. Haji Syed Ibrahim Rowther V. Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1962
Reported in: [1963]47ITR665(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, the first respondent, dated March 1, 1956, in G. I. 137-8/53-54 under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The second respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, who declined to revise the order of the first respondent.The brief facts that need be set out are as follows : The petitioner is a resident of Panruti, South Arcot District, and he is a partner in various firms of business. Two of the firms are N. V. T. S. Rowther & Co., Colombo, and N. V. T. S. & Co., Singapore. These are two non-resident firms in which the petitioner as a partner is entitled to a share. For the assessment year 1953-54 the petitioners total world income was computed at Rs. 62,810 after allowance of the earned income relief. This included the petitioners foreign income from the two firms at Colombo and Singapore. The Income-tax Officer, Cudda...
Ranjithammal Vs. Sowbagyathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad421
(1) The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal and she filed this suit for registration of a sale deed in her favour under S. 77 of the Indian Registration Act.(2) The defendant-respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff of a house on 23rd April 1957. On 2nd August 1957, the plaintiff presented the, sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, for registration. While presenting the document for registration, she filed a petition for excusing the delay in presenting the document before the Sub Registrar. no delay obviously was in waiting till almost the last day for presentation of the document. The Sub Registrar ordered notice to the defendant. The defendant appeared before the Sub Registrar on 30th August, 1957. He admitted execution of the document but stated that he was not willing to register the document as a large portion of the amount due under the sale deed was not paid to him. The Sub Registrar refused to register the document, and an appeal by the plaintiff to...
In Re: Govindasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1962
Reported in: 1963CriLJ128
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, Govindaswami, has been convicted under Section 44 (c) of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default, simple imprisonment for three weeks for the latter offence alone.2. Petitioner is running a business called Tamilnad Sound Service at Tirukoilur. He is actually a resident of Karadai village. On 26-11-1959 P.W. 2 (Soundararajan) a wireman in Tirukoilur Electric System, went to the premises of the petitioner to take meter-reading and found the meter was not recording and reported the matter to P.W. 1, Desikachari, Supervisor of the Tiruchi Electricity System at Tirukoilur. On that occasion, the petitioner was present in the shop. On 10-12-1959, a new meter was fixed. On 24-12-1959. P.W. 2 again went to the place and found the meter was not recording the consumption of electricity. He reported the matter to P.W. 1, who also visited the p...
A. Rangaswami Iyengar Vs. Pattammal Alias Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad490
Veeraswami, J.(1) These are petitions for leave to appeal under Article 133(1) of the Constitution from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, reversing the orders of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., by which the learned Judge, on appeals had himself allowed them, set-ting wide the orders of the court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput and the execution sale held in September 1954, in favour of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff and her daughter, the second plaintiff, who were the respondents, obtained a maintenance decree against the petitioner, the husband of the former and the father of the latter. The question of setting aside the sale in execution of the decree turned upon whether there was default on the part of the first plaintiff under Order 2i Rule 86 Civil-Procedure Code, and depended upon the true scope of the order dated 23-3-1955 of the Subordinate Judge in I. A. No. 230 of 1954 permitting her to bid and set off the total...
R. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ318
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which arises out of an order returning an application for probate of a will, for presentation to the proper Court has been placed before the Full Bench, by reason of a conflict between the decisions reported in Karthiruma Goundan v. Rangammal (1933) 62 M.L.J. 622 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 701 and P. J. Francis v. P.J. Varghese (1956) M.L.J. 288. The facts relevant for and giving rise to this appeal are : The appellant claiming as an executor under an alleged will of one P. W. Subbaraya Reddiar who died on 1st July, 1957, first applied for the grant of probate of the will in the Sub-Court at Tirunelveli. The application was opposed by the daughter of the deceased who contested the genuineness of the will and who inter alia denied the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court to dispose of a contentious application for probate. To appreciate the latter objection it is necessary to refer to two notifications conferring jurisdiction on the Sub-Court to grant probate...
R. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad450
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This appeal which arises out of an order returning an application for probate of a Will, for presentation to the proper court has been placed before the Full Bench, by reason of a conflict between the decisions. reported in Karthiruma Goundan v. Rangammal, ILR 55 Mad 701: AIR 1932 Mad 456 and P. J. Francis v. P. J. Varghese : (1956)2MLJ288 . The facts relevant for and giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant claiming as an executor under an alleged will of one P.W. Subbaraya Reddiar who died on 1-7-1957, first applied for the grant of pro-bate of the will in the Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The application was opposed by the daughter of the deceased who contested the genuineness of the will and who inter alia denied the jurisdiction of the Sub Court to dispose of a contentious application for probate. To appreciate the latter objection, it is necessary to refer to two notifications conferring jurisdiction on the Sub Court to grant probate of a will. They ar...
Vaithilinga Gounder Vs. Kuppusami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad137
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 18 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruthuraipoondi, is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts necessary for a consideration of this case are briefly the following. The suit property covers two plots of land--14 cents and 44 cents in extent. They belonged admittedly to the plaintiff. He was away from India between 1937 and 1956 and had asked his mother to look after the properties in his absence. The mother executed two sale deeds Exs. B-1 dated 12-7-1941 and B-2 dated 4-6-1942, in her own personal, right and conveyed the properties to defendant 5. The plaintiff filed the suit in 1957 for recovery of possession of these properties. Of course, along with the properties, alienated to defendant 5, there were some other properties which were alienated to some other defendants; but we are not concerned with those alienations to the other defendants in this second appeal, because the plaintiff has compromised with those defend...
Rajammal Vs. Kanniyan Muthuraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ423
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 85 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif, Mannargudi, is the appellant herein. The circumstances necessary for a consideration of this Second Appeal are briefly the following. The suit property belonged originally to one Sevu Ambalam who died several years ago leaving behind a widow by name Pothiathal. Two sons of Sevu Ambalam had predeceased him, and they had left behind three daughters, Rajammal, Sambu Ammal and Veerammal, the three defendants in the suit. Pothiathal left a will, dated 23rd April, 1931, under which she bequeathed the suit properties to two of her grand-daughters, namely, defendants 1 and 3. The plaintiff purchased from the third defendant, the latter's share in the suit properties under the will, by a sale-deed, dated 12th July, 1956. In a prior suit on the file of the District Munsif, Mannargudi, O.S. No. 272 of 1956, the plaintiff claimed possession of the properties he got under the sale-deed from the third d...
T.R. Punnavanam Pillai Vs. V. Muthuswami Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad444
1. This Revision Petition raises the question whether the tools of a goldsmith are exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(b), Civil Procedure Code. Section 60, in enumerating what properties are liable to attachment and sale in execution of decrees, mentions under the Proviso to it various classes of properties which are not liable to attachment. I am concerned here with Clause (b) of Section 60(1) which reads thus:tools of artisans, and, where the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist, his implements of husbandry and such cattle and seed grain as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such and such portion of agricultural produce or of any class of agricultural produce as may have been declared to be free from liability under the provisions of the next following section.2. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, against the respondent on a money claim and applied under Order 38, Rule 5 for attachme...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »