Chennai Court April 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR725(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - This reference has been brought before us on the application of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Act. The assessee-respondent is the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Madras. The assessee secured the services of an officer of the Imperial Bank of India, one Arumugham Subbiah. This officer was still in employ and would normally have retired with a claim to pensionary benefits from the Imperial Bank of India. He however agreed to take up employment under the assessee. Since such employment would have resulted in the denial to him of any pension, the assessee bank agreed to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 on his joining its service. He was to be paid a salary of Rs. 1,100 per month. The advance of Rs. 1,00,000 was to become the absolute property of Arumugham Subbiah free from any claim by the bank if he completed the term of seven years of service or if he became totally incapacitated for further service at any time during that period, or in the event of ba...
Muhammad Kaliba Rowther Vs. Muhammad Abdullah Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad84; (1963)IMLJ41
Veeraswami, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent, beyond 12 years of his purchase of 17/24 shares out of the suit property from all but one co-sharer, for partition and separate possession of such shares is, in the absence of any proof of ouster by the co-sharer in possession of the entirety of the property, barred by limitation. The property originally belonged to one Kadar Mohideen Rowther, who died in 1915 leaving his widow, two sons of whom the defendant who is the appellant in this court was one, and two daughters. It is common ground that the appellant is entitled to 7/24 shares. The respondent purchased the remaining 17/24 shares from the relative co-owners on 18th October 1945. He instituted the instant suit, out of which this second appeal arises on 20th January 1958. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the main ground that it was out of time. On that question the courts below were disagreed, the lower appellate court expres...
A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Mohamed Mytheen Mana Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad33
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil, holding that his purchase of the suit property at a Court auction in execution of a money decree obtained in O. S. No. 658 of 1101 M. E. on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Nagarcoil, against one Pavankusam Anachaperu-mal, the original owner of the property, was invalid for want of sanction of the District Court, Nagarcoil, which had appointed a receiver in O. S. No. 64 of 1109 M. E. on its file. On 26th January 1108, the judgment-debtor in O. Section 658 of 1101 M. E. pending an appeal which he had filed, furnished security for due payment of the amount covered by the decree in that suit, the security including the suit property. On February 1, 1108, the security was accepted by the Additional District Munsif, Nagarcoil. On August 16, 1112, there was an attachment of the same property by the District Court, Nagarcoil in O. S. No. 64 of nog. In that suit...
K. S. Ratnaswami Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Thanjavur and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR568(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The petitioner is a citizen of Ceylon. It came to the notice of the department that during the account year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, he had constructed a cinema theatre at Orathanad. He had submitted no returns at any time. In October, 1957, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 22(2) of the Act calling for the submission of the return for the assessment year 1957-58. The petitioner of this notice and purported to file returns for all the assessment years from 1950-51 to 1957-58 on 12th March, 1959.In respect of the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52, proceedings under section 34 were taken and a notice issued on 13th March, 1959. Pursuant to the direction calling upon him to submit returns, the assessee wrote to the Income-tax Officer stating that the returns filed by him on 12th March, 1959, might be treated as returns which he was called upon to file under section 34 of the Act. An assessment in respect of these two years was in due c...
Trilochan Singh Vs. the Director, Small Industries Service Institute
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad68; 1963CriLJ200
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J.1. The appellant who is a student-trainee in the Central Foot-wear Training Centre at the Industrial Estate, Guindy has filed this appeal against the judgment of Veeraswami J. dismissing his petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Director of Small Industries Service Institute, Madras, terminating his training at the Centre. The Central Foot-wear Training Centre has been started by the Government of India with the idea of developing footwear industry in the country by giving technical training to youngmen in the manufacture of footwear. The period of training is eighteen months; during the period the trainee is to be paid a stipend of Rs. 60 per mensem; there is also a hostel attached to the centre. The appellant was one of those selected for training for the course between September 1960 and the end of February 1962. He was also admitted as a member of the hostel attached to the training centre. At the time of his selection, th...
Kaliaperumal Padayachi and ors. Vs. Kuppayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad110
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. A question of law as to the effect of surrender by a Hindu widow arises in this case. Appellants are defendants 1 to 3. The suit was brought by the respondent for recovery of possession of the estate of her father, one Ayyakannu Padayachi, who is said to have died in or about 1921, leaving his widow Ammakannammal and two daughters, Kuppayee Ammal (plaintiff) and Thaiyanayaki Ammal. Thaiyanayaki Ammal had died before the suit was brought in 1956. Kuppayee Ammal, the only surviving daughter, inherited the estate of her father by reason of the surrender of the estate by the widow to Kuppayee Ammal. But the widow had created a mortgage over the estate of her husband sometime before 1934 in favour of one Kuppa Padayachi, the father of the first appellant. Upon this mortgage, O. S. No. 8 of 1934 was instituted, a decree was obtained and the properties were sold through Court auction and purchased by the mortgagee himself. From the mortgagee, appellants 2 and 3, who wer...
K.S.R. Acharya Vs. Mrs. Halima Meeran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad87
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a civil revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. against the decision of the Court of Small Causes at Madras, dismissing a new trial application, N.T.A. No. 77 of 1960, and confirming the judgment and decree in S. C. S. No. 3281 of 1959.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: The plaintiff in S. C. S. No. 3281 of 1959, Small Cause Court, Madras, sued to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 1205, alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15-12-1958, in pursuance of an agreement to purchase the defendant's house. The defendant was admittedly the owner of premises No. 14-B Station View Road, Kodambakkam, and he agreed to sell that property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 11600, and the agreement was embodied in a document dated 15-12-1958. The plaintiff alleged that she paid a sum of Rs. 1200 as advance under that agreement and that the advance amount was repayable to her, as the defendant did not sell the pro...
Vyravan Chettiar Chatram by Hereditary Trustee, D. Shanmuga Raja Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ20
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question of interpretation of Section 35-A of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. That section as well as Section 30-A were introduced by Madras Act XXXIV of 1958. Before dealing with the actual problem arising in these petitions, and noticing the facts relevant thereto, it is, in order to have a better appreciation, necessary even at -the outset to refer to the reasons, why the Amending Act of 1958 was passed. In The State of Madras v. Srinivasa Aiyangar : AIR1956Mad597 it was held that a minor Dharmilla inam formed part of the parent estate and on a notification under Section 3(b) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the entire interest in the major as well as the minor inams as parts of one estate will pass to the Government. It was further held that such a minor inamdar would, under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, be entitled to a proportionate share out of the compensation which of course would be com...
Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. Perry and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad460; (1963)2MLJ311
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an action instituted by the appellant in the District Court, Madurai for infringement of their trade mark. Messrs Parry and Co. Ltd. the appellant herein is a company with limited liability engaged on several lines of business activity. They are interested in a sugar factory at Nellikuppam in South Arcot District. They have also been manufacturing confectionery. For marketing their confectionery products they are using two trade marks which have been registered under Class 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, the registered numbers being 92, 251 and 1,24634. The first of the two marks is in the name 'Parry's' in block letters and the second is a design which contains the word Parry's written in script form. Both the marks were by virtue of the original registration to enure for a period of 7 years the former being in respect of sugar and all kinds of confectionary, while the latter was confined to all kinds of confectionery.The said trade ...
Gitanjali Press Private Ltd. Vs. S. Thangaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad493; [1962]32CompCas1108(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) This appeal arises from the judgment of Venkatadri J. in O. P. No. 77 of I960 appointing an administrator to conduct the affairs of a private limited company, Gitanjali Press (Private) Ltd., at Pudukottai, along with its managing director for the duration of certain appeals pending in this court. Gitanjali Press (Private) Ltd., the appellant, was incorporated on 27th October 1946 under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, as applied to the former Pudukottai State. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 30,000, divided into 300 shares of Rs. 100 each, 203 out of the, 300 shares have been issued and are fully paid up. Swamikannu Pillai an Indian Christian was the promoter of this concern and he owned 50 shares. Thangaswami and Ratnam, the son and brother respectively of Swamikannu Pillai owned 20 shares each. 113 shares stood in the names of the employees of the Press owned and conducted by the company. It is, however, claimed on behalf of the respondents, the hei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »