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.
Nagarathinathachi Vs. Karpagathachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad482; (1962)2MLJ312
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by the defendant in O. S. No. 26 of 1954 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, against the decree and judgment; therein. The appellant's father Sivasubramania Pillai, who was possessed of substantial properties, died in the year 1924 leaving behind him two widows Thalai Achi and Karpagathachi (the respondent), and a daughter Nagaratnam (appellant) born through the former, Sivasubramania Pillai's mother was also alive at the time of his death. About three years after his death, his mother and his two widows went on a pilgrimage to Banares. The expenses incurred during the trip created friction between the widows. Thialai Achi who was in possession of the properties accused her co-widow of extravagance. The other could not perhaps tolerate the criticism and as a consequence misunderstandings arose. The respondent, the junior widow, thereupon approached D.W. 1, Manickam Pillai, a trusted friend of her deceased husband, for effectin...
S. Rangaraju Naidu Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ232
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner owns agricultural lands in the revenue districts of Salem and Tanjore. He purchased in the year 1955 a tractor--Steyor make--for about Rs. 21,000 under a hire-purchase agreement with Government of Madras. The vehicle was registered as M.D.O. 1906 and a registration certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act was issued. The Regional Transport Officer, Salem, has made a tax demand upon the petitioner in respect of the vehicle at the rate of Rs. 293 per quarter of a year with effect from 4th January, 1956. This is based on the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931, and G.O. Ms. No. 3654, Home, dated 21st December, 1955, amending Rule 1 of the Rules of the Act. The validity of the claim for tax is challenged by the petitioner who prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, the respondent to cancel the endorsement on the Registration Certificate of M.D.O. 1906 regarding payment of tax.2. Wh...
P. Haji Abdul Wahab and Brothers Vs. the Government of Madras: No. 2
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC834(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. T. C. M. P. No. 120 of 1961 is an application for review of our judgment in T. C. No. 146 of 1959, which arose out of T. R. A. No. 1 of 1959 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. T. R. A. No. 1 of 1959 was itself an application for review filed by the applicant herein before the Tribunal to review its judgment in T. A. No. 493 of 1958 on its file. As against the decision in T. A. No. 493 of 1958 the department preferred T. C. No. 28 of 1959 in this Court, and that was dismissed by an order dated 6th September, 1961 Since reported as P. Haji Abdul Wahab and Brothers v. Government of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 824. T. C. No. 146 of 1959 was also dismissed by us by the same order Since reported as P. Haji Abdul Wahab and Brothers v. Government of Madras [1962] 13 S.T.C. 824. The ground for review urged in this application is that we failed to consider certain documentary evidence produced before us during the course of hearing of T. C. No. 28 of 1959 a...
Sona Ana Pana Balraj and ors. Vs. S.P. Vadivel Nadar and Sons and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad12
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. Both these related Letters Patent Appeals have been Instituted respectively by the defendants in A. S. Nos. 560 and 561 of 1936 before a learned Judge of this Court (Ramachandra Iyer J. as he then was) with reference to the injunction granted by the learned Judge in respect of a registered trade mark (Manthithope,) used in the context of designating medicinal oils. In both the appeals, which differ upon the particular factsotherwise, the common ground is that this name, being a georgraphical appellation of a village in Tirunelveli District, ought not to have been registered as a trade mark. Further it is pleaded that the respondents were not entitled to obtain an injunction of this kind in respect of such an invalid registration offending the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (V of 1940), which Act governs the parties to this action.2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals (Sri R. Gopalaswa...
A.P. Mariappa Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ5; [1962]13STC746(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in handloom and mill cloth at Chennimalai, Coimbatore District. For the year 1957-58 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Erode (Rural) assessed him under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 3,41,948-82 nP. He appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore, and obtained a modification in regard to the rate of assessment on a portion of the turnover but otherwise failed. He preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and disputed the assessment of tax at the rate of 8 per cent, on the turnover of Rs. 88,732-73 nP. This turnover is comprised of the following items:1. Turnover of sales of medium cloth from Rs. 82,543-08 nP.1st April, 1957 to 31st March, 19582. Turnover of sales of fine and superfine Rs. 7,194-65 nP.cloth from 1st September, 1957 to 12thDecember, 1957 --------------- Total Rs. 89,737-73 nP.---------------2. The petitioner's contention was that the add...
C. Ramaswamy, and Others Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR164(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - A tea and coffee estate named Havukal estate at Kotagiri is owned by a firm consisting of nine partners. The petitioners are some of the partners. The firm is registered under the provisions of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act for the year of assessment 1958-59 (accounting period May 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958). The petitioners had borrowed money from money-lenders and bankers for contributing towards the purchase price of acquisition of the estate. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer determined the assessable income of the firm from the estate as 60% of the total income determined by the Income-tax Officer acting under the Indian Income-tax Act. Each one of these petitioners claimed by way of deduction 60% of the interest paid on their respective capital borrowing. In computing the income under the Indian Income-tax Act the petitioners were allowed deduction to the extent of 40% on their borrowed capital as 40% of the income alone was taxable under that Act. The c...
Tirugnana Sambanda Mudaliar Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad144
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 70 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingiepur, is the appellant herein. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of this appeal are briefly the following.2. The plaintiff, Meenakshi Ammal, obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants 2 to 4 and their brothers, and father, in O. S. No. 8 of 1945 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput. The maintenance decree imposed a charge on the one-third undivided share in two Items comprised in the schedule to the plaint in the present suit and also another item, 372/2, 4 acres and 30 cents in extent. The plaintiff brought the plaint schedule properties to sale for arrears of maintenance accrued due in 1951. In the court auction sale, the first defendant who is the father-in-law of the second defendant, purchased the suit properties and the sale was confirmed on 12-8-53. It is common ground that in the sale proclamation, there was no specific reference that the pr...
Ramachandra Gounder Vs. Venkatachala Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad498
(1) This appeal by the defendant in a suit for a permanent injunction restraining him from taking water from the well in S. No. 299/4-B in Vellakuttai village to his field in S. No. 301/1 in the same village, involves a question of some interest and importance. The question might be-stated in essence, as the application of the appropriate legal principles of the rights of the co-owners in a common source of irrigation, to the facts. For this reason the facts themselves have to be precisely enunciated and considered, and 1 shall address myself to this task first.(2) It is admitted that the suit well is in a separate sub-division, namely S. No. 299/4-B and that the plaintiff and the defendant each has a half right or share in this well. It is very important to note that the prior history of this matter shows that the well was irrigating a number of fields not precisely ascertained a certain part of the area now being in the undoubted ownership are possession of the plaintiff. I may also ...
S. Abdul Muthalibu Vs. K.M. Mohammed Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad506; [1962]32CompCas1102(Mad)
(1) This appeal came up for bearing in the first Instance before Rajgopalan J. and he referred the matter to a Bench since so far there is no authoritative pronouncement of this court on the question involved. The question involved is one of limitation in respect of a claim put in by the appellant Muthalibu in the winding up proceedings of the Pioneer Board Mills Ltd., Dindigul. He advanced a sum of Rs. 375 on 12-1-1952 and a further sum of Rs. 50 on 1-3-1952. The application for winding up was preferred on 22-11-1954. The Company was ordered to be wound up on 14-10-1955. Reckoning the period of three years from the dates of the debts, the claim was barred by limitation on 14-10-1955 but not on 22-11-1954. The learned District Judge held that the claim was barred by limitation and the appellant preferred this appeal. Rajagopalan J. referred the matter for decision by a Bench as stated. (2) The claim itself was put in on 26-3-1956. The matter has to be decided with reference to the Com...
Minor Perumalsamy Naicker and anr. Vs. Srinivasaga Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad396
(1) This second appeal is preferred by two plaintiffs, who brought the suit for a declaration that a certain alienation of an item of joint family property made by the first defendant was a sham and nominal transaction not binding on them and for other incidental reliefs but not recovery of possession. The first plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and the second plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The first defendant was the joint family manager of this family consisting of himself, his minor son, the first plaintiff, and his wife, the second plaintiff. He died after the institution of the suit in the court of the District Munsif of Koilpatti. The alienation which was impeached in the suit was in favour of defendants 2 to 5. The second defendant is the divided brother of the first defendant. The date of the alienation (Ex. A-4) was 4-12-1956. It was a sale in respect of 91/2 acres of family lands in favour of defendants 2 to 5 for a consideration which, according to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »