Chennai Court September 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.
N.S. Krishna Iyer Vs. Subramania Mooppanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad243
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of proceedings initiated by the appellant for restitution by way of delivery of possession of a house in Madurai town purchased by the first respondent and subsequently transferred by him to the third respondent. The facts are these: The first respondent instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai a suit O. S. No. 37 of 1951 for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 9060 as due to him in respect of two loans for Rs. 6000/- and Rs. 2000/-. A decree for that sum together with subsequent interest was passed on 18-11-1952. The debtor-appellant filed an appeal against the decree to this Court in A. S. No. 174 of 1953. 2. In the meantime the decree of the trialCourt was put in execution. The appellant wastrying his best to avoid the Court sale of his properties by making payment towards the decree. Itis admitted that he had paid on various datessums amounting to about Rs. 3500/-, but as theamount under the decree then outstanding ...
E. Krishnappa Naicker Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC162(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salem, functioning under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, dated 19th June, 1962, rejecting his application for stay of collection of tax and penalty levied upon him by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai, for the year 1960-61. In this writ petition he prays for the issue of a writ of cerliorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner impleaded as the second respondent. The first respondent is the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai.2. The petitioner is a dealer in fried grams. In respect of the year 1960-61, his taxable turnover under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, was estimated by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvannamalai, at Rs. 1,90,063-94 and tax and penalty of Rs. 3,801-28 and Rs. 2,844 respectively have been...
V. Kandan Moopan Vs. M. Arumugha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ182
Veeraswami, J.1. This arises out of a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of payment of rent. Under Sub-section (4)(b) of Section 3 of Madras Act XXV of 1955 the Revenue Court granted time to the petitioner until 31st July, 1960, for depositing all arrears. Before the expiry of the time, however, the petitioner applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer for extension of time. At the same time and on the same day, he deposited a sum of Rs. 200 and on 2nd September, 1960, he deposited the entire balance. The Revenue Court took the view that it had no option but to dismiss the petition. In its opinion there was no enabling power under Sub-section (4)(b) of Section 3 to extend the time. The question is whether this view of the statutory provision is correct.2. Sub-section (4)(b) of Section 3 reads:Sub-section (4)(a)...(b) On receipt of such application, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the landlord and the cultivating tenant to make t...
K.E.M. Mohammad Ibrahim Maracair and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ434
K. Srinivasan, J.1. Mohammad Ibrahim Maracair and Mohammad Abdulla Maracair were partners in the firm of Mohammad Abdulla Maracair and Company, Panruti. Ibrahim Maracair submitted his returns for the assessment years 1947-48 to 1954-55 and was duly assessed. Likewise, Abdulla Maracair made his returns for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1954-55. The assessment of the incomes of these two persons during the relevant assessment years covered their partnership income in the above-said firm. The assessments were made in the status of resident and ordinarily resident.2. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1956-57, the Income-tax Officer became aware that these assessees were non-residents and that they had income outside the taxable territories which if taken into account under the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act would attract tax at a rate higher than that at which they had been assessed. Accordingly, he re-opened the assessments of these tw...
K. E. M. Mohammad Ibrahim Maracair and Another Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR890(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - Mohammad Ibrahim Maracair and Mohammad Abdulla Maracair were partners in the firm of Mohammad Abdulla Maracair and Co., Panruti. Ibrahim Maracair submitted his returns for the assessment years 1947-48 to 1954-55 and was duly assessed. Likewise, Abdulla Maracair made his returns for the assessment years 1948-49 to 1954-55. The assessment of the incomes of these two persons during the relevant assessment years covered their partnership income in the above-said firm. The assessments were made in the status of resident and ordinarily resident.In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1956-57, the Income-tax Officer became aware that these assessees were non-residents and that they had income outside the taxable territories which if taken into account under the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, would attract tax at a rate higher than that at which they had been assessed. Accordingly, he reopened the assessments of these two assessees...
Rm. A. R. Ar. Rm. A. R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR43(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is an income-tax reference arising under the following circumstances. One Arunachalam Chettiar (senior), a resident of Devakottah, owned a large extent of properties of great value in Ceylon. He had three wives, Valami Achi, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi. Valami Achi died as early as 1913, leaving behind her a son, Arunachala (junior), and three daughters; Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi had no issues. Arunachala (junior) died on the 9th July, 1934, and Arunachala (senior) died on the 23rd February, 1938. He was survived by his two wives, Lakshmi Achi and Nachiar Achi and by Umayal Achi, the widow of his predeceased son, Arunachala (junior). Disputes arose between these three widows, two of them, the widows of Arunachala (senior) and the other widow of Arunachala (junior). They formed the subject-matter of the suit in O. S. No. 93 of 1938, on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottah. During the pendency of that suit, the estate was placed in custodia legis and two advoca...
Rukkumani Ammal (Died) and anr. Vs. Kamachi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad450
1. This appeal arises out of an obstruction offered by the appellant at the time of delivery to the respondent of certain property, in execution of a mortgage decree. The appellant is a Court auction purchaser; that purchase was in execution of a simple money decree against the debtor. The latter, an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Act V of 1954 was indebted to a creditor under a promissory note of the year 1950. No suit coma be filed against an agriculturist debtor during the time when Act V of 1954 and the Ordinance which preceded were in force. The prohibition contained in those two enactments was in force from 6-12-1953 to 1-7-1955. The legislation also provided safeguards to the creditor who was prevented from filing a suit for recovery of his dues. Section 6 which is one of these provisions says:'Effect of transfer of immovable property by debtor:--Every transfer of immovable property by a debtor entitled to the benefit of Section 3 or Section 4, made after the commencem...
Haji K.M. Abdul Kasim and ors. Vs. P.M.N. Mohammed Dawood and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad247; (1963)IMLJ281
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The sole question that arises for determination in this appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. is whether an order of the Wakf Board constituted under Act XXIX of 1954 (The Wald Act, 1954) granting permission to certain relators to institute a suit, can be regarded as amounting to the performance of a quasi judicial duty so as to be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned, judge (his judgment is reported in Abdul Kasim v. Mohamad Dawood, : AIR1961Mad244 has answered that question in the negative. Hence this appeal.2. The appellants are three among the six trustees of Annural Muhammadiyah Madarsa Trust which is being administered under a scheme framed by this Court. Respondents .1 to 7 to this appeal claiming to be interested in the institution and complaining of breaches of trust on the part of the trustees and also alleging that directions of the Court were necessary to amend the existing scheme appr...
Narasram Naraindas Alias Purshotamdas Vs. R. Venkataswami Naidu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ140
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal which is filed against the judgment of Anantanarayanan, J., is whether a tenant of land in an area to which the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1931 applies, can be given the benefit of that enactment in respect of a building put up by him on the land where the lease deed in his favour expressly prohibits him from putting up any superstructure.2. The appellant is the owner of a site measuring about 19 1/2 cents in Cross-cut Road, Tatabad, Coimbatore Town. He granted a lease of the property on 10th February, 1953 in favour of respondents 1 and 2, whom we shall hereafter refer to as tenants, for a period of one year, expressly stipulating that the tenants should not put up a superstructure on the property nor even sublet the same. There was, however, no provision for re-entry or forfeiture in case of breach. It must therefore be taken that the term in the lease-deed imposing an obligation on the ten...
Sri Ahobila Mutt Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswami Sannadhi Vs. Karumani Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad61
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These appeals which are directed against the judgment of Srinnvasan, J. arise out of two suits instituted by the appellant to recover arrears of rent for a period covered by seven faslis from 1360 to 1366 at the rate of Rs. 35 per seed kotah of land in the possession of the respondents. The appellant is the inamdar of certain lands in the former Oothumalai zamin which are now in the occupation of the respondents to these appeals. The inam grant was made prior to the permanent settlement and it is now settled as a result of a litigation instituted in the year 1910 between the inamdar and the respondents' predecessors-in-title, that the grant was only of the melwaram, the kudiwaratn interest having been with the ryots even at the time of the grant. The inam in favour of the appellant, is therefore, a pre-settlement inam of the melwaram only which by virtue of the grant, the inamdar could collect directly from the ryots who had pre-existing occupancy rights in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »