Chennai Court July 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.
V.K. Nataraja Gounder Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ315
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The question that stands referred to us is:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 20,000 on the Hindu undivided family represented by the present Kartha in respect of the return made by the previous Kartha under Section 28(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 2. Kumaraswami Gounder was the Kartha of a Hindu undivided family till his death on 2nd January, 1950. While examining the accounts relevant to the assessment year 1948-49, the Income-tax Officer came across certain unexplained cash credits of Rs. 16,355 in the suspense account, and bank deposits of Rs. 13,468 which found no place in the business books. On the date of this discovery, the previous Kartha Kumaraswami Gounder had died and his son Nataraja Gounder had become the Kartha of the assessee, the Hindu undivided family. This Nataraja Goundar was unable to explain the credits in the suspense account and only stated that the...
P.A.T. Subbaraya Pillai Vs. Vaheesan, Minor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad405
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These three appeals are preferred by Sub-barayaa Pillai, the younger son of Thillainayagam, who died on 15-8-1947, leaving a Will, Ex. A.1, dated 20-2-1945. Even in 1940, Thillainayagam had executed a partition deed, Ex. B.1, by which he purported to divide some of the properties owned by him and his sons as joint family properties claiming the rest as his self-acquisitions. But in the Will, Thillainayagam treated all the properties as his self acquisitions and claimed a power of disposition over the entire estate. He provided by his will, for his daughters, his wife, his second son and his first son's sons. Subramania, the son of Thillainayagam, by his first wife, who was thus cut out from any share in the family properties by the Will filed O. S. No. 120 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cuddalore for partition of his share in the joint family properties. He contended that the partition deed of 1940 executed by his father, as also the Will...
M.P.S. Palauiappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. V.E. St. Vairavan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ130
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Anantanarayanan, J. arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant in the Sub-Court at Pudukottah for evicting the respondent from a certain property in the West Main Street, at Pudukottah for a mandatory injunction to demolish the structure put up thereon, and for damages The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the finding that the property being a building, the appellant could not sustain the suit for eviction by reason of the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. On appeal Anantanarayanan, J. while upholding the right of the respondent to protection under the said Rent Control Act held that there was no prohibition under that enactment to entertain the suit and pass a decree in conformity with the provisions thereof The learned Judge accordingly allowed the appeal in part granting a decree for possession but at the same time declaring that as the property involved in the s...
S. Rengarajan Vs. Srirangam Janopakara Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad76; (1962)IILLJ482Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner was employed under the first respondent bank as its secretary with effect from 17th October, 1953. On 16th May, 1954, the Board of Directors framed certain charges against him and pending enquiry kept him under suspension. In response to a show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanations on 19th May, 1954, and 24th May, 1954. On 10th June, 1954 at 12 noon he was informed that the Board of Directors would hold an enquiry at 6 p.m. There was a controversy as to whether the petitioner was actually present at the enquiry. By a resolution of that date the petitioner was found to be guilty of all the charges and he was removed from service. This order was communicated to him on 12th June 1954. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The appeal in the first instance was allowed on the ground that the Board of Directors had held no enquiry, and that the charges were n...
Merchants Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Dharmasamvardhani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad143
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal is preferred from the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer J. : (as he then was) in C. M. P. No. 3788 of 1960 in A. S. No. 144 of 1960 pending in this court, It is sufficient for us to observe that the proceeding before the learned Judge was by the appellant bank, for an interim order of stay pending the appeal, with regard to the decree obtained by the respondent (widow of the deceased employee of the bank) embodying the liability of the bank to pay certain provident fund amounts to the credit of that employee. Briefly stated, the bank claimed that the deceased employee was guilty of malversation of the funds of the institution to a far greater extent than the claim and that, therefore, the widow could not obtain such a decree, or at least that she should not be permitted to enforce the desree and take away the monies pending the appeal by the bank against the decree in the widow's suit.2. The learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer J.:) briefly referred to the circu...
Murugesan Pillai and anr. Vs. Jokki Venkatachalapathi Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ62
1. In this appeal which is directed against a preliminary decree on a mortgage, one of the two questions argued is whether the mortgage document imports a personal covenant, on the basis of which a suit for sale could be sustained. Mr. D. Ramaswami Ayyangar, appearing for appellant, (the defendant in the suit) contends that there is no personal covenant in the mortgage document, which purports to be a mortgage with possession, and that therefore the suit which was instituted for sale of the mortgaged property cannot be sustained. We cannot, however, agree with the learned Counsel on the construction of the document. The relevant clause in the document runs thus:On the expiry of the stipulated period on 30th June, 1952, you shall receive from me the afore' said usufructuary mortgage amount and cancel this deed after crediting the same and hand it over to me together with the other title deeds and also deliver possession of the land. If the usufructuary mortgage amount has not been paid ...
Bakiam Alias Muthuswami, Minor by His Guardian and Natural Paternal Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ150
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the first respondent, Valli Ammal, the only question involved in it being the true construction of Exhibit A-I, a deed of settlement. Before referring to the facts that have led up to this litigation, we shall set out the genealogical tree of the settlor's family, as that would facilitate a due appreciation of the contents of the document, Alagayee | Tambaram alia Muthuswami | m. Pappammal | ___________________________________________ | |Rajoo (died 1952) Minakshisundaramm. Sudalai Ammal (deft. 2) (died 1919) m. Valhammal (plff.) | | | |Bakiam (deft. 1) |(adopted by Rajoo) Muthuswami (died 1920)Alagayee executed the settlement deed on 17th September, 1910. Under that document, she declared that she should, during her lifetime enjoy the properties settled, that thereafter her son, Tambaram, and his wife should enjoy them without any powers of alienation, that on the termination of their life, Raju a...
Workers employed in Thambi Motor Service, represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad163; (1963)ILLJ497Mad; (1963)1MLJ33
Ramachandra Iyer, C. J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar J. in W. P. No. 320 of 1958. Irusappan and Manickam, who had been in the service of the first respondent, were retrenched by the latter. The concerned workers raised a dispute which was duly sponsored by the appellant-Union. On 30-10-1957, the Government of Madras made a reference to the Labour court, Coimbatore, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act the following question; 'What retrenchment compensation, if any, are the workers, Irusappan and Manickam, entitled to?' it will be apparent from the form of the question that it accepts that there was a valid retrenchment, but that the dispute to be adjudicated related only to the quantum of compensation. The reference was duly received by the Labour court, which called upon the management and the union to file their respective statements. The Union was not satisfied with the terms of the reference. It wanted to challenge the validity of the ...
Doraiswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. Govindaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad207
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. In C. M. P. No. 4304 of 1961 this Court made a conditional interim stay of execution in respect of a path-way and recovery of possession of certain tamarind trees. The condition was three-fold namely that the petitioner in that petition should deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 within a specified time and furnish security within the same time for a sum of Rs. 1000 and further deposit in the trial Court every year a sum of Rs. 350 the first payment to be made on 1st July 1962. The order made certain other further directions which are not relevant for present purposes. There was no direction in the order as to what is to happen in the event of a default to comply with any one or more of the conditions prescribed. It is common ground that the sum of Rs. 2000 was deposited within the time allowed, out of which a sum of Rs. 1000 has been drawn out by the respondent. In respect of the furnishing of security for a sum of Rs. 1000, it is stated that the petitioner deposited cash ...
Andal Ammal and anr. Vs. Sivaprakasa Sethurayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad452
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 and 5 in O. S. 26 of 1958 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the plaint-schedule properties and for recovery of possession with past and future mesne profits. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of the second appeal can now be put down. The plaintiffs rely upon a genealogical tree appended to the plaint A schedule. 2. It is common ground that the spit properties were owned by Vaithilinga Sethurayar who died several years ago leaving behind a son, Kulandayya Veerayyan, widow Chinnathal, and a daughter, Kasturi Ammal. This Kulandayya Veerayyan died in 1900, unmarried. Therefore he was the last male owner of the properties. On his death Chinnathal succeeded to the properties. She lived to a good old age and died on 13-11-1955. Her daughter, Kasturi Ammal, predeceased her and Kasturi Animal's daughter, Andal Ammal is the first defendant. The pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »