Chennai Court July 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.
Alamelu Ammal Vs. Radhakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad304
Ramamurti, J.1. The defendant in the suit O.S. No. 167 of 1958, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant in this second appeal.2. On 22-12-1955 two brothers Koothan and Palani conveyed the suit properties to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 200 and on the same day as part and parcel of the sale transaction the defendant executed a registered agreement of reconveyance in favour of one of the brothers, Palani, agreeing to reconvey the properties as and when the latter paid the sum of Rs. 200 during Chitrai Kalavathi of any year when there were no crops on the land. Palani executed a sale deed of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff under Ex. A-3, dated 14-5-1957, and the latter tendered the sum of Rs. 200 to the defendant and asked for a reconveyance of the property but the defendant declined to do so. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.3. The defendant contended that the right of Palani to obtain the reconveyance from the defenda...
Virudhunagar Malaipettai and anr. Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad458
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners herein are two sanghams. These sanghams are registered associations and they are running two markets in Virudhunagar. They are private markets. These markets are said to afford facilities 1o agriculturists who grow cotton and groundnut in and about the area. The markets provide weighing sheds, yards for drying groundnuts, godowns etc. In 1952, the Government directed the constitution of a Market Committee under Madras Act XX of 1933. Certain provisions of this Act were attacked as unconstitutional, but the contentions of these petitioners that any of the provisions of that Act involved an infringement of the right on the part of the petitioners to do business failed. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court left the question open whether any rules promulgated by the Government in exercise of the powers under the Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' rights. That, in the opinion of their Lordships, could be decided only after a...
In Re: Sundararaju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ457
Kailasam, J.1. The disposal of the sessions case by the learned Judge is most unsatisfactory. A charge Under Section 304, Part II, IPC was framed against the first accused, and Under Section 323 against the second accused. Both the accused pleaded guilty. The learned Judge accepted the plea of the accused as voluntary and not induced as in his opinion they got the advice of Sri R. Kalyanasundaram Iyer, learned defence counsel. After accepting the plea of the first accused, the learned Judge has referred to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 in the committal Court though their evidence was not recorded in the sessions Court. The learned Judge without referring to the evidence of the doctor relied on the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor. The procedure adopted by the learned Judge is not warranted in law. The learned Judge can only act on he evidence that was tendered before him. This case emphasises the necessity for the learned Judges to take evidence even though the accuse...
K.S.A. Kuchelanarayanan Chettiar Vs. S.P. Sheik Abdul Kadar and Co. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ99
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The 1st respondent in I.P. No. 2 of 1959 who was adjudged insolvent by the learned Subordinate Judge and whose appeal against the order of adjudication has been dismissed by the District Judge, is the revision petitioner, He and the respondents were carrying on partnership business under the name of M/s. S.P. Shaik Abdul Kadar & Co. as per an agreement Exhibit A-6 dated 19th November, 1950. Under this agreement, the respondents agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 20,000 to carry on the business and the petitioner undertook to manage the business with a nominee of the respondents who would be in charge of cash and accounts. There was another agreement in 1953 (Exhibit A-7) superseding the first agreement. In all the respondents advanced more than Rs. 20,000 towards the partnership business, and the petitioner had executed a mortgage for Rs. 15,000 over the premises in which the business was carried on. There was a settlement of accounts on 14th February, 1957, wh...
M. Ratanchand Chordia and ors. Vs. Kasim Khaleeli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ293
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by the respondent, who will be referred to as the plaintiff in this judgment for a declaration that he has a right of way across the pathway marked ABCD in the plan attached to the plaint and described in Schedule 'A' to the plaint, and, for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants, who will be referred to as the defendants, from interfering with his rights and for a mandatory injunction to demolish the wall marked X Y in the said plan.2. The learned Third Assistant City Civil Judge who tried the suit held in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were reversed and the suit was dismissed. There was a Second Appeal to this Court by the plaintiff which was heard by Kailasam, J. The learned Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restored that of th...
K.M. Venugopal Pillai Vs. K.M. Madhavakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad155
Anantanarayanan, J.1. In a suit for partition tried before the learned subordinate Judge of Erode (U. S. No. 87 of 1956), the following were the relationships between the parties, which will also explain the array of the parties before us in the respective appeals. There was a certain Marimuthu Pillai who had, two wives, the junior wife being the second defendant in the suit. By the senior wife, he had two sons, the first defendant and one Rajagopala Pillai, who is dead, the husband of the third defendant. The plaintiff is the son by the junior wife, and defendants 4 and 5 are the daughters of the third defendant and Rajagopala Pillai aforesaid. The sixth defendant, who is a party with significant claims relative only to certain properties ct. D schedule, is alleged to be the permanently Kept mistress of the first defendant. Defendants 7 to 116 were Impleaded as tenants of B schedule properties, and with most of those parties we are not now concerned. But we might briefly note that def...
B. Kanniah Prasad Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad311; [1964]15STC63(Mad)
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal is instituted by the assesses under the Madras Sales tax Act, from the judgment 'of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was) in W. P. No. 737 of 1959, in which the learned Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition. The broad facts are really not in dispute before us, and the crux of the matter is whether the learned Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of unjustified delay and laches on the part of the petitioner.2. The petitioner (appellant) is a merchant conducting trade in bamboos, as well as certain types of works contracts. On 9-3-1954 he was assessed upon a turnover of Rs. 2,89,023-13-3. Of this total turn-over, a part related to certain works contracts and amounted to Rs. 1,12,840-6-0. The rest related to turnover upon transactions of the bamboo trade, in. the usual course, and that is not. in dispute before us. Out of the total sum of Rs....
The Collector of Central Excise Vs. V.K. Palappa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad111
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ appeal is filed under the Letters Patent against the decision of Ramachandra Iyer J. (as he then was), in W. P. No. 590 of 1958. The prior facts, which led to the present proceedings, are briefly the following2. The petitioner in the writ petition is a dealer in scented chewing tobacco, cigars and beedies, and he had a licence for maintaining a warehouse for the storing' of tobacco. Under the rules, for the grant of such licence, the petitioner had to keep proper accounts of the stock of tobacco in the warehouse. On a check by the excise authorities, his stock was found short by a substantial quantity. This made the petitioner liable to, certain penalties, under the Central Excise Rules (1944), Rule 223-A. The Collector of Central Excise called upon him to show cause, why a penalty should not be inflicted upon him for the shortage. After receiving the petitioner's explanation, the Collector found that the explanation was not satisfactory, and imposed on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›