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.
Ejman Mohamed Meeran Gani Sahib and ors. Vs. the Estates Abolition Tri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ213
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioners are said to be joint landholders of Agaram Zamin Estate in the Salem District, of which Agaram and Kondamanallur are admittedly under tenure estates notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. It is common ground that the two villages were subject to a usufructuary mortgage on the foot of which a final decree was passed on 3rd April, 1959. The petitioners applied under Section 42 of the Act only on 15th June, 1959. Their case was that they were under the impression that it was only after obtaining a decree for redemption, they could even apply under Section 42. The deposit as required by Section 41(1) of the Act was made by the Government with the Tribunal on 5th October, 1957. The Tribunal declined to accept the explanation offered by the petitioners as valid and found that their application was out of time even under the First Proviso to Section 42(1). This petition is to quash the order of the Tribunal.2. In so far a...
Vr. Rm. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Abdul Hameed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad73
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The second defendant respondent herein had mortgaged a superstructure. The plaintiff obtained a decree in O. S. No. 345 of 1951. In land acquisition proceedings the site and the superstructure were acquired, compensation being granted to the owner of the site and to the 2nd defendant as the owner of the superstructure. The plaintiff as mortgagee did not put forward his claims in the acquisition proceedings with the result that the compensation amount was paid to the 2nd defendant. This was subsequent to the decree which the plaintiff had obtained. Thereupon, the plaintiff laid the suit against the State of Madras and the 2nd defendant for recovery of the amount of his mortgage claim. The learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur, dismissed the suit as against the State of Madras but passed a decree against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant appealed and his contention was that the plaintiff's remedy was not personally against him but only aga...
Bangaru Ammal Vs. M.V. Kuppuswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad211
Jagadisan, J.1. This is a simple appeal; but a question of law is raised on facts which are plain and undisputed. The appellant claims a right of subrogation to the extent of Rs. 850 under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act in the following circumstances.2. The first respondent, who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, respondents 2 to 5, instituted the suit, O. S. No. 5o of 1956, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, for recovery of money due on a simple mortgage dated 1-11-1944 in his favour executed by the first defendant in the suit. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule properties belonged absolutely to the first defendant. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded as puisne mortgagees, holding usufructuary mortgages, of items 1 to 3 respectively. The first defendant held only mortgage rights over items 5 and 6 of the plaint schedule and the fifth defendant was impleaded as he claimed a vendor's lien over these items. The fourth defendant, who was the usufructuary mo...
Kothari Textiles Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad274; [1963]33CompCas217(Mad); [1963]48ITR816(Mad); (1963)IMLJ242
Srinivasan, J. 1. In these four tax references a common question arises, that is, as to the proper interpretation of the expression 'net wealth' as defined in the Wealth Tax Act.2. In T. C. No. 210 of 1959 relating to the assessment year 1957-58, the assessee Company made a return of its wealth on the basis of its balance sheet made upto the 3oth June, 1956. It is admitted that that date is the valuation date for the purpose of wealth tax assessment. The assessee deducted from the total wealth two sums as below:Proposed preference dividend ... Rs. 72,000 Proposed ordinary dividend ... Rs. 2,40,000. It is common ground that the directors of the company made a recommendation to the General body that the dividends should be paid as mentioned above in their report dated the 26th November, 1956, and that the General body at its meeting, held on 29th December, 1956, approved the balance sheet and the directors' report and sanctioned the payment of the dividends proposed. The Income-tax Offic...
Ponnuswami Udayar and anr. Vs. Santhappa Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad171
Jagadisan, J. 1. O. S. No. 459 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sankaridrug at Salem, was a suit for partition and separate possession of a share in the plaint mentioned properties. The second plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The trial court granted a decree in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 3 for 3/16ths share in item I of the suit properties, but dismissed the suit in regard to the other items. On appeal from the said decree in A. S. No. 33 of 1947, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, plaintiffs 1 and 3 were granted a preliminary decree for partition of one-tenth share in all the suit items of properties. In S. A. No. 1985 of 1958 this Court affirmed that decree. There were several defendants in the suit, some of whom were alienees of portions of the suit properties. 2. Plaintiffs 1 and 3 filed an application I. A. No. 783 of 1954 in the District Munsif Court, Sankaridrug under Order 20 Rules 12 and 18 Civil Procedure .Code, ...
R.A. Natarajan Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad489; 1964CriLJ559
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Srinivasan j. dismissing an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, which was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, The appellant is a bus operator in North Arcot Dt. and on a particular date it was found that one of his buses was overloaded. The appellant was charged with contravention of the rules and an enquiry was held by the Regional Transport authority in which it came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence of overloading his bus and as a consequence the permit held by the appellant was suspended for a period of one month. Against that order the appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the order of the lower authority.After the appeal was dismissed by the tribunal the appellant applied to it offering to compound the offence as provided in 8.60(3) of the Motor Vehicles A...
R.A. Natarajan Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ367
S. Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Srinivasan, J., dismissing an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore, which was confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appellant is a bus operator in North Arcot District and on a particular date it was found that one of his buses was overloaded. The appellant was charged with contravention of the rules and an enquiry was held by the Regional Transport Authority in which it came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence of overloading his bus and as consequence the permit held by the appellant was suspended for a period of one month. Against that order the appellant preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which confirmed the order of the lower authority. After the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, the appellant applied to it offering to compound the offence as provided in Section 60(3) of the M...
State G.S.S.i. Vs. P. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad160; (1963)1MLJ15
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras City, has made this reference to the High Court under Section 432(2) Cr. P. C. for its decision on certain questions of law which arose during the hearing of C. C. No. 5192 of 1961 on his file. The facts that led to the reference are briefly the following: 2. One P. Ramaswami, accused in the case is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a paper called 'Nathigam'. In three issues of this paper an article under the caption 'Allavin Thandanayil Alangolam' was published and it is alleged that the above publication was made with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of the Muslims and that consequently the accused committed an offence under Section 295-A I. P. C. ' In order to comply with the provisions in Section 196 Cr. P. C., which prescribes that a complaint made by the order of, or under authority from the State Government, is an essential prerequisite before a court can take cognizanc...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. A. V. Meyyappa Chettiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR751(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - This reference concerns a claim relating to depreciation allowance. The assessee derives income from a studio, where motion pictures are produced. Under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Indian Income-tax Act, depreciation at certain rates is allowed on the assets utilised for business. For the assessment year 1950-51, the assessee claimed that he was entitled to double depreciation under the terms of the rule in respect of certain buildings which he claimed to be factory buildings. It is conceded that the buildings in question come under the third class specified in rule 8. That rule states :'Third class buildings of construction inferior to that of second class buildings, but not including purely temporary erections,' would be normally entitled to 7.5 per cent. depreciation.The remarks column to the rule states :'Double these numbers will be taken for factory buildings excluding offices, godowns, officers and employees quarters.'The Income-tax Officer did n...
M.C.T. Muthiah and anr. Vs. Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Southern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad235
Srinivasan, J. 1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are the accountable persons. In respect of the estate of the deceased Chidambaram Chettiar, the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty by his order dated 29th November 1958, served upon the petitioners on 2nd December 1958, called upon the petitioners to pay the net duty of Rs. 1,81,400-46 nP. After deducting the sum paid by the petitioners, he demanded the payment of the balance of Rs. 1,29,749-54 nP. on or before the 10th January 1959. The petitioners applied to the Deputy Controller for a postponement of the collection of the estate duty to the extent to which there was a dispute and which dispute was the subject-matter of an appeal pending before the Central Board of Revenue. The Deputy Controller, while conceding the right of the petitioners to exercise the option under Section 70(2) of the Act in respect of the duty on the immoveable property, declined to grant the request for postponement of the collection of the balance on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »