Chennai Court August 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.
R. Subbaraya Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. K.R. Eswaramoorthy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad202
Ganapatia Pillai, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the first defendant in O. S. No. 54 of 1958 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. That suit was brought by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 21794-8-0 due on a promissory note executed by the appellant. The admitted facts are these.2. The appellant and the father of the respondent were carrying on business in partnership at Tirupur under the name and style of K. S. R. and Co. This firm became indebted to the Central Bank, Tirupur, in a large sum. In order to pay off this debt the two partners of K.S.R. and Co. borrowed Rs. 50000 by executing two promissory notes; the notes sued upon in this litigation was one ana the other was the note executed by the father of the respondent in favour of one Saraswathi Amnial, a niece of the respondent. Both notes were executed on 14-3-1351.Sometime before the execution of the promissory notes K. S. R. and Co. stopped doing business. Even while they were doing business the r...
G. Govindaraju Mudaliar Vs. Vinayak Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad310; (1963)1MLJ234
Venkatadri, J.1. This second appeal has been referred to a Bench as it raises a question of general importance, namely, whether Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to art agreement signed by a manager of a Hindu joint family on behalf of other members of the family without describing himself as such. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this interesting question are the following: The suit property originally belonged to one Krishnaswami Mudaliar and his three sons Swammatna, Damodara and Pinagapani. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and his eldest son Swaminatha executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of one Sundararajan. Sundararajan, the usufructuary mortgagee, entered into an agreement to assign hismortgage rights to Jeeevaratnammal (the 2nd defendant in the suit) and Chellammal, the wives of the first defendant in the suit for a sum of Rs. 240 on 19-2-1940. After the death of Krishnaswami Mudaliar, Swaminatha, his eldest son, executed an agreement Ex...
The Kulitalai Bank Ltd., by Its Managing Director, S. Annadurai Iyer V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ219
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The question in these petitions is whether Clause (b) or Clause (d) of Section 25 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955 governs the two plaints filed in the trial Court. On that will depend the determination of the Valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. The Court of first instance took the view that Clause (b) applied and not Clause (d) of Section 25. But this view was upset on appeal and it was held that the Court-fee paid and the valuation made under Clause (d) of Section 25 were proper. These petitions are directed against the common order relating to both the plaints. The plaints have been filed by the same plaintiffs, the first of them being the mother, and the rest her sons and stepsons, the first defendant being the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6. The substance of the two plaints is this. The properties which had been mortgaged by the first defendant on the foot of which the mortgagees had obtained decrees, belonged to the joint family a...
Sundarambal Vs. Suppiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad260; (1963)1MLJ106
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C. J. 1. This appeal raises a question under Section 24 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956. The appellant is the daughter of the respondent through his first wife, whom he discarded in the year 1944. The appellant's mother instituted O. S. No. 70 of 1949 against we respondent and his father in the Sub Court, Madurai, to recover past and future maintenance for herself and her daughter. But the latter was not made eo nomine a party to the suit. The claim for maintenance was compromised, under which the appellant's mother was given a house for residence and a sum of Rs. 35 per mensem. The compromise decree is dated 30th October 1950. About three years thereafter, the appellant attained the age of majority. She even got employment in June 1956. On 20th September 1956, she instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against her father, the respondent herein, for recovery of past and future maintenance. Her claim was originally contested on the gro...
A. Veerappan and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ100
Srinivasan, J.1. These three References raise a common question and it is whether certain amounts received by the respective assessees as dividends from a foreign company are assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act.2. The facts are identical in the three cases and we shall refer to those in T.C. No. 107 of 1960. The assessee is a merchant at Colombo. He held 2,125 shares in a company called 'Avra, Limited' which has its registered office in Colombo. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee received as dividend a sum of Rs. 10 per share and this amount of Rs. 21,250 so received by him was remitted to the taxable territory. The Income-tax Officer brought this amount to tax. Before him this amount was claimed to be exempt on the ground that it was paid out of the capital profits of the company. But the Income-tax Officer held that no material had been placed before him as to the nature of the capital profits nor the period during which such profi...
A. Veerappan and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR280(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - These three references raise a common question and it is whether certain amounts received by the respective assessees as dividends from a foreign company are assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act.The facts are identical in the three cases, and we shall refer to these in T. C. No. 107 of 1960. The assessee is a merchant at Colombo. He held 2125 shares in a company called 'Avra Ltd.' which has its registered office in Colombo. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1954-55, the assessee received as dividend a sum of Rs. 10 per share and this amount of Rs. 21,250 so received by him was remitted to the taxable territory. The Income-tax Officer brought his amount to tax. Before him this amount was claimed to be exempt on the ground that it was paid out of the capital profits of the company. But the Income-tax Officer held that no materials had been placed before him as to the nature of the capital profits nor the period during which such profits had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›