Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad300; (1963)IMLJ154
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal, which is filed against the judgment of Subrahmanyam, J., raises a question under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act. The property which forms the subject-matter in this litigation is half a share in what was purchased by one Peter Jagannathan, a Hindu convert to Christianity. His father, who remained a Hindu, had taken a second wife after Jagannathan's mother's death. She and the two sons born of her are the appellants. Jagannathan died sometime in 1950, leaving behind him his widow and a son. A creditor of his instituted a suit, S. C. 524 of 1952, in the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, against the widow and son of Jagannathan, to recover the moneys due to him, and, after obtaining a decree, brought the property that stood in the name of Jagannathan for sale in execution. The respondent, Chellakutti, was the purchaser at the Court sale. He obtained delivery of possession in due course.2. The Court auction took place during the pendency of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad106
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned IV Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court in O. S. No. 901 of 1957, a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property. One Loganatha Mudaliar purchased the plaint-schedule item 1 in his name and the plaint schedule item 2 in the name of his wife, Rathanammal. Loganatha Mudaliar died in 1955 and Rathanammal died in 1947, toganatha Mudaliar executed the will Ex. B-1, dated 1-3-1954 under which he gave the plaint schedule item 1 (two acres and 85 cents) in Kodur village in Rajampet taluk in Cuddappah Dt. to his son, Parthasarthi Mudaliar, the first defendant in the suit, he gave item 2 of the plaint schedule (1 acre and 41 cents) land in Kodur village to his daughters who are not parties to this suit; he gave some other property to his daughter-in-law, Nagarathnammal, who had, at that time, lost her husband and who is the second defendant in the suit. It is alleged by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad107
(1) This is an appeal filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Veeraswami J. issuing a writ of certiorari quashing a resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Madras which debarred the respondent from appearing at its examinations for a short period. The respondent was a student of Thiagaraja College of Engineering one of the institutions affiliated to the Madras University. He appeared as a candidate for the Second B. E. degree examination (integrated course) held by the University in September 1961. On 12-9-1961 the second paper in physics was given to him for answer at the examination hall. The answer books which he completed and delivered to the chief superintendent present at the examination hall, consisted of the main and three additional books. But two of the latter bore evidence of their having been prepared outside and brought into the examination hall, the candidate having included the same with the rest of the answer books. The Chief Superinten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad13; [1963]48ITR745(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. Messrs. Thirumal and Co., Ltd., referred to in this judgment as the assessee, is a private limited company carrying on the business of Managing Agents of another company, called Thirumagal Mills Ltd. For the assessment year 1956-57, corresponding to the previous year ending 31st March 1956, the assessee was assessed on a total income of Rs. 1,20,863. The paid up capital of the assessee company is Rs. 2000. A dividend of Rs. 60,000 was declared by the assessee to be distributed to its share-holders. The dividend thus declared and distributed was clearly in excess of six per cent of its paid up capital. The Income-tax Officer, Vellore, who made the assessment applied the provisions of the Finance Act of 1956 and reduced the amount of rebate of super tax from four annas in the rupee to which normally the assessee would be entitled. That part of the dividend which exceeded six per cent but did not exceed ten per cent of the paid up capital suffered a reduction of rebate at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad238; (1963)ILLJ32Mad
Jagadisan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ forbearing the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, from enforcing the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952) and the Scheme framed thereunder, against them. I shall refer to Act XIX of 1952 as the Act in this judgment. 2. The petitioners constitute a firm of partnership carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of brass and copper vessels in the village of Pallathur in Ramanathapuram district. They purchase brass and copper sheets and circles from the market, and turn these raw materials into household vessels and utensils by employing manual labour. The products so shaped and turned into wares are polished with the aid of electric motor of 6 H. P. According to the petitioners there are only three employees under them who do the packing and despatch of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad449; (1963)1MLJ160
1. The question for determination in this revision petition is whether a receiver appointed under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act is bound by a contract entered into by the mortgagor with the tenant In possession of the mortgaged property subsequent to the creation of the mortgage and subsequent to the creation of the tenancy regarding the repayment of a loan taken by the landlord from the tenant, by adjustment against the rent payable. Both the single Judge of the Small Cause Court and the Bench of that Court on a new trial took the view that the sum of Rs. 650-3-3 admittedly advanced by the tenant to the landlord did not amount to a premium or advance payment of rent and consequently was not hit by Section 65-A(2)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and the receiver was therefore bound by the agreement between the mortgagor and the tenant. All the three Judges overlooked the fact that the agreement about repayment of the advance made by the tenant to the landlord was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1963CriLJ690
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Ibramsa has been convicted under Section 304-A I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioner drove the bus MDR 2439 on 24-10-1960 at about 6-40 p.m. negligently in Nachiapuram village and hit against one Shanmugham, a boy aged seven years, and caused his death. At the time of the accident the petitioner was negotiating a turn towards the main road after touening the bus stop in that village. The boy Shanmugham who was sitting on the western side of the road ran towards the east at about a distance of 15 feet in front of the bus. Both the Courts below accepted the evidence of p.w. 1, Ramalingam, and P.W. 11, Durairaj, Inspector of Police who were travelling in the bus at the time of the accident and found that the left side head light of the bus was not burning. The courts below did not accept the plea of the petitioner that the bulb of the head light on the left side fused on account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad82; 1963CriLJ300
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Rajoo alias Idly Rajoo has been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 75, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The learned advocate for the petitioner argued the criminal revision petition as though it is a regular criminal appeal. In fact, one of his contentions is that Section 411, Crl. P. C. is ultra vires having regard to Article 14 of the Constitution. According to him, the petitioner would have a right of appeal if he had been convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment in the mofussil. There is no substance in this contention. There are separate civil and criminal courts in the City of Madras with separate jurisdiction and they differ widely from the civil and criminal courts in the mofussil. The reasons for the difference could be understood only by a person having knowledge of legal history. It could not be said that the existence of such difference in the constitution and jurisdiction of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1962)2MLJ537
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Raju alias Edly Rajoo has been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 75, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. ,The learned advocate for the petitioner argued the Criminal Revision Petition as though it is a regular Criminal Appeal. In fact, one of his contentions is that Section 411, Criminal Procedure Code is ultra vires having regard to Article 14 of the Constitution. According to him, the petitioner would have a right of appeal if he had been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in the mofussil. There is no substance in this contention. There are separate Civil and Criminal Courts in the City of Madras with separate jurisdiction and they differ widely from the Civil and Criminal Courts in the mofussil. The reasons for the difference could be understood only by a person having knowledge of legal history. It could not be said that the existence of such difference in the constitution and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1963)1MLJ103
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. Plaintiffs 3 to 6 in O.S. No. 26 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants before us. They along with four others brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that the properties described as Items 1 to' 13 and 14 to 21 in the plaint schedule should not be either sold or could be sold if at all only subject to a charge in favour of the 6th plaintiff for realisation of income-tax arrears due from their elder brother Ramaswami and for a permanent injunction restraining the Union of India and the Collector of Coimbatore from bringing these properties to sale for realisation of the income-tax arrears due.2. The facts are the following. One Palanrappa Mudaliar was doing hardware business in Erode from 1920. He prospered in the business and purchased many properties including all the properties now in suit. He died in 1937 leaving his widow, the third plaintiff, and eight children. The first plaintiff wa...
Tag this Judgment!