Chennai Court October 1963 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.
P.M.St.P.L.Ct. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. E.S.S.S. Varusai Muhammad Rowth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad54
Ramakrishna, J.(1) These six writ appeals arise form the order of Srinivasan J. in six petitions, which comprise of three pairs. Each pair appertains to the grant of variation in the route of stage carriage permit. According to an order of the State Government issued under S. 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in G. O. No. 91 Home dated 5-1-1962, the State Government extended the existing route of 48 miles in length between Udukottai to Manapparai, by tacking to it an extra distance of 43 miles, upto Esanttam. W. P. 229 of 1962 was for a writ of certiorari to quash this government order, and W. P. 230 of 1962 was for a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Transport authority not to give effect to this Government Order. These two writ petitions are the subject matter of W. A. 106 and 107 of 1962. The second pair (W. P. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1962 leading to W. A. 108 and 109 of 1962) arises out of Government order No. 28 Home dated 3-1-1962, by which a pre-existing route from stature to...
Solar Works Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad376; [1964(9)FLR232]; (1963)IILLJ597Mad
Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The application was filed Under Section 75(2) of the Act by the Employees' State Issurance Corporation, to recover contribution due from the employer, namely, the Solar Works, the appellant in this appeal (respondent in the application before the Employees Insurance Court, the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras). The application was filed for the recovery of contribution relating to the period between March 1957 to November 1958. It was filed on 21-6-1959. The Act does not prescribe any period of limitation within which such an application could be filed; but R. 17 of the rules framed by the Madras State Government prescribes a period of 12 months from the date, on which the cause of action arose or the claim became due. There is a proviso that the court may entertain an application after the said period of 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficie...
Regional Transport Authority Vs. Sri Mettupalayam Coonoor Service (P) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad454
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These appeals are filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment given by Veeraswami, J. in a number of applications filed under; Article 226 of the Constitution raising a common question under the Motor Vehicles Act. The subject-matter of the applications relates to proposals for the opening up of new routes, namely, Mettupalayam to Gudalur via Ootacamund, Ootacamund to Devaushola via Pykara and Vellore to Kilarasampatti and for putting up of additional stage carriages on the existing route, Coimbatore, Tudialur-Mettupalayam.2. Certain existing operators over the routes or sectors thereof opposed the proposal. But the concerned Regional Transport authority in each of the cases passed an order limiting the number of buses over the particular route. The transport Commissioner confirmed such orders in their entirety in a few cases and in regard to a part with respect to the rest. The Regional Transport Authority thereupon proceeded to invite app...
Ananchaperumal Yogeeswarar Vs. Sivagurunatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ86
ORDERG.R. Jagadisan, J.1. This is a Second Appeal from the preliminary decree passed by learned District Judge of Kanyakumari in a mortgage action. The suit was instituted by the respondents herein for redemption of the mortgage. The Courts below granted a decree for redemption and this appeal has been preferred by the defendants.2. I do not propose to set out the facts and circumstances of the case at any great length ; nor do I wish to refer to the contentions urged before me now, as in my opinion, a revised finding has to be called for from the lower appellate Court in regard to one of the crucial questions upon which the learned District Judge has failed to record a satisfactory finding.3. The plaintiffs alleged that the suit properties were mortgaged under an other deed dated 13-12-1107 M.E. for 20,500 fanams executed by one Sooriyanarayana Pillai, their predecessor-in-interest. The other document was in favour of one Bhagavathi Annachu. On his death, the defendant in the suit (ap...
P.M.St.P.L.Ct. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. E.S.S.S. Varusai Mohammad Rowth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ191
S. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These six Writ Appeals arise from the order of Srinivasan, J., in six Writ Petitions, which comprise of three pairs. Each pair appertains to the grant of variation in the route of stage carriage permit. According to an order of the State Government issued under Section 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in Government Order No. 91, Home, dated 5th January, 1962, the State Government extended the existing route of 48 miles in length between Pudukottai to Manapparai, by tacking to it an extra distance of 43 miles, upto Esanattam. W.P. No. 229 of 1962 was for a writ of certiorari to quash this Government Order, and W.P. No. 230 of 1962 was for a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Transport Authority not to give effect to this Government Order. These two Writ Petitions are the subject matter of W.As. Nos. 106 and 107 of 1962. The second pair (W.P. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1962 leading to W.A. Nos. 108 and 109 of 1962) arises out of Government Order No. 28, Home, dated,...
K. Srinivasan Iyengar Vs. Khader Mohideen Rowther (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ323
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The facts giving rise to this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal are as follows. A vacant site belonging to two individuals Kadar Mohideen Rowther and Ibrahmsa Rowther was leased to the appellant (Srinivasa Iyengar) for a period of 10 years on 26th April, 1938 on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The lease deed, Exhibit A-3 in the case, provided for an option in favour of the lessee to obtain a renewal for a period of two years after the expiry of the ten-year period. At the end of the ten years fixed under the lease the tenant (appellant) exercised the option and continued to be tenant till 1st April, 1950. Thereafter he claimed a further extension but the lessors would not consent to it. This dispute between the parties culminated in a suit O.S. No. 327 of 1950 which was a suit filed by the lessors for evicting the lessee. The trial Court granted a decree for eviction. There was an appeal by the tenant in A.S. No. 94 of 1951 on the file of the District Court of Madurai an...
Papammal and ors. Vs. Chinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ306
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellants are defendants 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the Courts below in a suit for recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff, claiming to be the beneficial owner of the properties, whose title was not affected by the ostensible sale deed executed by her in 1952 in favour of her brother, the first defendant, the vendor of these properties by subsequent transactions to the appellants. I might briefly state that, on the application of the criteria relevant to an alleged nominal transaction of this character, which was not intended to convey title as between the parties, the learned District Munsif of Melur who tried the suit, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish her case, and dismissed the suit as against the subsequent vendees (appellants).2. The matter came up in first appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai. He again dealt with the main matters in controversy, in the context of the tests applicable, and came to th...
S.B. Adityan and Others Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR453(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - These are petitions under article 226 of the Constitution filed by the same petitioners in relation to the same subject-matter. In Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1961 the prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the First Income-tax Officer, City Circle IV, dated November 6, 1961, in G.I. No. 301-T. In Writ Petitions Nos. 276, 278, 279 and 280 of 1963, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of prohibition to forbear the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation 'A' Circle, from proceeding with enquiries commenced under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act in regard to the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 respectively. In Writ Petitions Nos. 277, 281 and 282 of 1963, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation 'A' Circle, from proceeding with further enquiries in pursuance of notices issued under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act in relation t...
Sm. M.A. Janaki Vs. Official Trustee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad352
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are unnumbered appeals sought, to be filed by Srimathi M. A. Janaki (party in person) for whom Sri V. C. Srikumar has also appeared as amicus curiae at our instance, against the orders of Venkatadri J. in the application before him, declining leave to the petitioner to institute civil proceeding against the respondents shown in the petitions, Under Section 3 of the Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act of 1949. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner (Shrimathi M. A. Janaki) has been declared a vexatious litigant by a judgment of a Bench of this Court, and that the Act governs, thereafter all proceedings sought to be instituted by her. It is further not in dispute that no such proceeding could be instituted by her, except upon leave of court obtained on application made for the purpose. Further, Section 3 of the Act lays down that the leave referred to shall not be given, unless this court 'is satisfied that there is prima facie ground for such proc...
Short Bros. (P.) Ltd., in Voluntary Liquidation by Its Liquidator, A.K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ66
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The question that arises in this Writ Petition calls for interpretation of Section 2(6-A), (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act. It arises in the following manner. M/s. Short Bros. (P.) Ltd., own certain coffee estates in Salem District. The company sold all of its assets on 24th December, 1959. The assets sold included the lands, buildings and machinery. By a resolution passed on 6th February, 1960, the company went into voluntary liquidation. The sale proceeds realised was in excess of Rs. 11 lakhs. The liquidator made a distribution to the shareholders of a sum of Rs. 81/2 lakhs which represented the excess of the sale proceeds over the book value of the assets. In the view that the excess so distributed did not represent the profits or accumulated profits, the Liquidator did not deduct tax on such distribution. The Income-tax Officer by his letter dated 19th December, 1960, proposed to treat the sum of Rs.8 lakhs so distributed as dividend falling within the meaning...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »