Chennai Court May 1962 Judgments
T.S. Sailappan Vs. Subbiah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad156
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This reference involves the determination of the question 'whether an interim Receiver appointed under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is entitled to apply to set aside a court sale of the property of a debtor under Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C.' 2. The third respondent in this civil revision petition obtained in O. S. No. 53 of 1955 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, a decree against the fourth respondent for the payment of a sum of money. In execution of the decree ha attached and brought to sale certain immoveabla properties of the debtor. In the sale that was held on 4th November 1960 the first respondent who was the highest bidder became the purchaser. Subsequent to the sale and before it was confirmed, i.e., on the 23rd November 1960 another creditor of the fourth respondent applied to the Sub-Court of Tirunelveli in I. P. No. 18 of 1960 to adjudge the latter an insolvent. The petition was duly admitted and on 23rd November 1960 the Off...
Tag this Judgment!G. Abdul Rahim Sahib Vs. Zeenath Bi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad186
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O. S. No. 224 of 1956, a suit for partition and possession of the plaintiff's share in the plaint schedule properties. The parties arrayed in the suit on either side were related in the following manner. The plaintiff, Abdul Rahm, the second defendant, Abdul Rahman and the fourth defendant,Ibrahim (who died after the suit and whose legal representatives have been subsequently added as defendants 6 and 7) were brothers. The third defendant is their sister. The fifth defendant is a purchaser from the fourth defendant. The first defendant Zalnath Bi is the daughter of the deceased Abdul Azeez. Out of the several items of property which constituted the schedule to the suit, we are concerned for the purpose of this appeal, with the proper shares to be allotted out of one item of immoveable property, namely, the house No. 9 Adam St. Madras and certainquestions...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramanatha Pillai Vs. K.V. Annamalai Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad342; (1963)1MLJ263
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was laid by the first respondent as plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 365 due under an othi deed, dated 28th July 1943. This was executed by the appellant both on his own behalf and as guardian of his elder brother's sons, defendants 2 and 3, who were minors on the date of the othi deed. The sum claimed consisted of Rs. 200 principal and interest at 51/2 per cent, per annum from the date of the mortgage deed. Contentions were raised as regards the validity and binding character of the mortgage in regard to the share of defendants 2 and 3 and also on the question of the mortgage being a real transaction. I am not concerned with these questions in this appeal. But, a question of limitation was raised on the ground that since the mortgagee was entitled to possession of the mortgaged property and such possession was not delivered the suit ought to have been filed within twelve years from the d...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen employed in the Madras Pinjrapole represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1962
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ472Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. In the Management of the Madras Pinjrapole v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madras, : (1960)IILLJ686Mad Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as he then was) held that the Madras Pinjrapole was not an ''Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, namely, 'any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen'; the institution not being an 'industry' within the definition, it followed that the reference by the State Government of the alleged industrial dispute between the Madras Pinjrapole and its workmen, under Section 10(1)(c), for adjudication to the Labour Court, was incompetent. The petition before the learned Judge was by the Madras Pinjrapole under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, prohibiting the presiding officer, Labour Court, Madras, fro...
Tag this Judgment!Clara Mookerjea Alias Smt. Mathuri Devi and anr. Vs. Surendra Manilal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad208
ORDERJagadisan, J. 1. The petitioners filed the suit O. S. No. 1989 of 1957 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for redemption of a mortgage dated 21-5-1952 executed by them in favour of the second defendant in the suit. The petitioners contention was that the mortgage debt was fully discharged and that the mortgage should therefore be declared to be redeemed. Pending the suit, the petitioners prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the mortgagee from bringing the property to sale under Section 69. of the transfer of Property Act. It must be mentioned that under that provision of law the mortgagee has a right to exercise what is called a private right of sale. This application for injunction was ultimately dismissed by order of court dated 18-12-1958. The mortgagee had therefore a tree hand in exercising the right of sale under Section 69 of the Tarnsfer of Property Act and he purported to exercise that right.It is now claimed that one Srimathi MadamKavar Galada has beco...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ct. Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1962
Reported in: [1963]48ITR678(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question to this court for decision under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the dividend received by the applicant from the Indian Bank Ltd. and the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. during the previous year for 1950-51 and from the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. for the previous year for 1951-52 and 1952-53 should be grossed up and given tax credit at the rates prescribed in the respective Finance Acts or at lower rates arrived at by deducting the relief under section 49D ?'The assessee is a banking company now under liquidation. It held shares in the Indian Bank Ltd. and the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. These banks will, hereinafter, be referred to as the 'companies'. In respect of these shares, the assessee received dividends between 1st April, 1949, and 31st December, 1949. The Income-tax Officer grossed up the income from the dividends on the basis of certifica...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan Oil Industries (Pr.) Ltd. Vs. Athi V. Suryanarayana Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad128; [1963]33CompCas833(Mad); (1963)IMLJ250
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The appellant herein is Sri Murugan Oil Industries, Private Ltd., by its Managing Agents, Kolandaiappan, defendant in O. S. No. 291 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif of Karur. The suit was filed by two partners of a firm, for dissolution and rendition of accounts against the third partner. The trial court decreed the suit, and this was confirmed by the lower appellate court. Defendants appeal. The prior circumstances necessary for a consideration of this second appeal are the following :On 4-2-1955, a deed of partnership was entered into between (1) A. T. V. Suryanarayana Chettiar, (2) A. T. V. Ramachandran Chettiar and (3) M. Kolandaiyappan, Managing Agent, Sri Murugan Oil Industries Ltd., for and on behalf of the said company. The agreement went on to recite that Kolandaiyappan who is the proprietor of another company, M. Kolandaiyappan and Co. conducted and managed in his capacity as managing agent, the Sri Murugan Oil Industries Ltd. In the course of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›