Chennai Court November 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.
A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ390
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The following questions have been referred by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act:Whether, on the materials on record, there was no division of the joint family assets including the business in Malaya and Burma as and from 15th September, 1950, or at least from 13th December, 1950 as claimed by the assessee andWhether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the assessee firm is not entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Act for the period from 14th April, 1951 to 15th November, 1951 2. The facts are as follows : A Hindu undivided family of Nagarathars having the Vilasam 'A.K.A. CT. V.' consisted originally of the father, Chidambaram Chettiar, and his four sons, Alagappa, Meenakshisundaram, Venkatachalam and Annamalai. The kartha, Chidambaram Chettiar, died on 21st July, 1950. Thereafter, the family consisted of the four brothers. Annamalai the last b...
Valli Ammal Vs. Subramania Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ275
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of an appellate order declining to set aside an execution sale held under a mortgage decree. The mortgagor's application to set aside the sale was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that one of the petitioners was absent and the other did not tender any evidence on the application. An appeal was filed by the judgment-debtors to the lower appellate Court against the order refusing to set aside the sale. During the pendency of that appeal, the mortgagors deposited in the appellate Court an amount in conformity, with the requirements of Order 34, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, and prayed for the setting aside of the sale. It must be noticed that notwithstanding the fact that the petition for setting aside the sale had been dismissed by the executing Court, the matter was at large before the appellate Court in appeal. It would, therefore follow that there was no final order of confirmation of sale before the app...
A. K. A. Ct. Vs. Ct. Alagappa Chettiar and Others V. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: [1965]55ITR605(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byJAGADISAN J. - The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act :'(1) Whether, on the materials on record, there was no division of the joint family assets including the business in Malaya and Burma as and from September 15, 1950, or at least from December 13, 1950, as claimed by the assessee and,(2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the assessee firm is not entitled to registration under section 26A of the Act for the period from April 14, 1951, to November 15, 1951 ?'The facts are as follows : A Hindu undivided family of Nagarathars having the vilasam A. K. A. CT. V. consisted originally of the father, Chidambaram Chettiar, and his four sons, Alagappa, Meenakshisundaram, Venkatachalam and Annamalai. The kartha, Chidambaram Chettiar, died on July 21, 1950. Thereafter, the family consisted o...
A. Kanniah Chettiar Vs. the Collector of South Arcot, Cuddalore and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad155; [1964(8)FLR418]
ORDER(1) The petitioner was an upper division clerk in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Cuddalore. He was later transferred as special Revenue Inspector for Land Acquisition. In September 1957, a charge memo was issued to him containing certain charges. The petitioner prayed that the enquiry should be referred to some other officer, as the Special Tahsildar who issued the charge memo, was prejudiced against him. The matter was thereafter enquired into by the Special Deputy Collector, Neyveli. The petitioner made a further request that the matter might be transferred to be dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, as he was then working in the Taluk Office, Vriddhachalam. This request was refused. Subsequently the special deputy Collector, made an order calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. A questionnaire was also furnished to the petitioner who was directed to fill it up. The petitioner submitted his written explanat...
Shanmugasundara Mudaliar (Died) and anr. Vs. Gora Alias Peer Mohammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ304
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The plaintiff who failed in both the Courts below is the appellant He, in his capacity as an executor appointed by one Kuppuswami under his will, dated 9th May, 1948, brought the suit for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage, dated 13th February, 1958, executed by the testator and his sons, defendants 10 and 12. The suit was resisted by the 8th defendant on the ground that he purchased the equity of redemption from the sons of the testator and also the nth defendant, the son of the 10th defendant, and redeemed the mortgage. By the will, the testator gave a third share to each of his two sons and the remaining one-third share to his three daughters. On 4th May, 1944, the 10th defendant and his son sold to the 8th defendant a half-share in the property covered by the othi. By another sale deed, dated 13th June, 1949, the 12th defendant, the other son of Kuppuswami, sold his half share to the 13th defendant, from whom the 8th defendant also purchased that half. The p...
A. Kannaiah Chettiar Vs. the Collector of South Arcot and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ397
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner was an upper division clerk in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Cuddalore. He was later transferred as Special Revenue Inspector for Land Acquisition. In September, 1957, a charge memo, was issued to him containing certain charges. The petitioner prayed that the enquiry should be referred: to some other officer, as the Special Tahsildar who issued the charge memo was prejudiced against him. The matter was thereafter enquired into by the Special. Deputy Collector, Neiveli. The petitioner made a further request that the matter might be transferred to be dealt with by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, as he was then working in the Taluk Office, Vriddachalam. This request was refused. Subsequently the Special Deputy Collector made an order calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. A questionnaire was also furnished to the petitioner who was directed to fill it up. The petitioner submitted his...
Ayyanan Vs. Pechi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ274
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit which was filed before the learned District Munsif of Melur on 2nd January, 1958, for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved her possession on the date of the suit. But on appeal preferred by the plaintiff this finding was reversed and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff was in possession on the date of the suit, and was still in possession.2. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, the first defendant is alleged to have created a lease in favour of the second defendant. On behalf of the second defendant it was pleaded that he was not liable to be evicted by virtue of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, XXV of 1955. The learned Subordinate Judge without discussing this point at length held ...
Kamalammal Vs. Board of Revenue by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ394
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner was running a touring cinema. For a period of three months from 1st April, 1959 she had obtained a licence for a particular site and for another period a fresh licence in respect of a different site. According to her, practically every week there used to be surprise inspections by the Commercial Tax Officer or other authority when the registers and records were examined. The petitioner was making her weekly returns as required according to the conditions of the permit in Form IV. On 26th March, 1960 a surprise inspection showed certain defects. It is not necessary to enter into that aspect of the matter. But following this inspection a notice was issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer wherein he proposed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of two periods from 1st April, 1959 to 10th November, 1959 and again from 15th February, 1960 to 20th March, 1960. This best judgment assessment was presumably made for the reason that certain de...
Oakley Bowden and Co. Vs. Indian Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad202
Veeraswami, J.1. Both the courts below have concurred in passing a decree against the defendants for recovery from them of a sum of Rs. 2463-14-2 on the basis that the first respondent, Indian Bank, which was the plaintiff, had by mistake given credit to the first defendant in is current account at Madras by two double entries, the Courts below were of the view that the first defendant, a public company, had the means of knowledge and, therefore, every opportunity to know the real position so that the principle of estoppel could not be applied against the plaintiff bank. Defendants 2 and 3 did not appeal against the decree of the trial Court throughout, but the public company, which is the first defendant, has.2. The first defendant was a customer of and had * current account with the Indian Bank, the plaintiff, at his head office at Madras. The first defendant had also dealings with defendants 2 and 3 at Guntur and the arrangement between them was that they should remit in the Guntur ...
A. Annamalan Mudaliar Vs. Perumayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad139
(1) The appellant, a twice married Hindu, contests by this appeal the right of his first wife to live apart form him and claim maintenance for herself and the children born of her. More than 20 years ago, when it was permissible under the law for a Hindu to take more than one life, the appellant married the first respondent. Within a short time thereafter, he took another wife, who is now living with him, but who is not made a party to these proceedings. The appellant lived with them amicably, having two children by his first wife and four by the second. On 20-2-1959, his first wife left him with her children, preferring to live separately. Shortly after wards, she made a claim on her husband for maintenance and followed it up with the suit which has given rise to this second appeal.(2) Both the courts below have granted the first respondent the relief sought, directing the appellant to pay for the maintenance and residence of his first wife and her children. The only basis for the cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »