Chennai Court August 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.
M. Ayyasami Nadar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC952(Mad)
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. This revision case is against the conviction and sentence of the four petitioners by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate under Section 45(2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the sentence being a fine of Rs. 200 on each, in default two months' simple imprisonment.2. The four petitioners are the partners of M. Ayyasami Nadar. There was one other partner by name Shanmugha Nadar. He died pending proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate and his name was struck off.3. The firm of Ayyasami Nadar has been dealing in provisions at No. 172, Anna Pillai Street, with godowns at Kandappa Chetty Street. The Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (P. W. 1) inspected the shop and godown of the firm on 28th June, 1958, in the presence of Kandasami Nadar (A-3) when he took into custody a pocket note book exhibit P-1 containing entries of business transactions from Dharmalingam, an employee of the firm. Subsequently, on a report from P.W. 1, the Joint Commercial Tax Offi...
Raju Pillai Vs. Palanisami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad205
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal has been instituted by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 123 of 1956 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in App. 93 of 1958 and the memorandum of cross-objections before the learned Judge. The background is a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff-appellant in regard to an alleged joint family business, and the main relationships of the members are as follows: Plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant are brothers, and the sons of a certain person named Periasami Pillai. They formed members of a joint Hindu family, whose main business was trade commenced by the grandfather of the plaintiff. We might here add that the third defendant is the widow of Periasami Pillai, who died in August. 1953. Plaintiff was still recently a station master in railway service, and the first defendant is now a. Revenue Divisional Officer in State service. The second defendant is in the village supervising ...
Sellappa Chetty and ors. Vs. Marappa Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad37
(1) Defendants 1 to 3 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate Judge, Erode, in O. S. 24 of 1956. The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The plaint allegations were briefly as follows.Defendants 1 to 3, who formed an undivided Hindu family, owned the suit properties. The first defendant was the manager. Defendants 1 to 3, the first defendant acting on behalf of his minor sons, sold them to one Arumugham Chettiar for Rs. 5000 on 15-7-1948. Simultaneously, Arumugham Chettiar executed an agreement of reconveyance of the properties to the defendants 1 to 3 for a consideration of Rs. 5000 and also subject to the condition that the sale price should be paid in any Chitrai month within ten years of the date of the agreement. On 11-7-1949, defendants 1 to 3 assigned their rights under this agreement to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 14,912-8-0. There were specific directions in this agreement regarding t...
Devalla, Guruswamiah and ors. Vs. E. Ramakrishna Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad142
(1) In the second appeal the question is whether it is necessary, for valid exercise of the power of sale under S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, that the first mortgagee, who invokes the power, should give notice of it to the second mortgagee and in the other appeal, C. M. A. No. 80 of 1962, the question is one of limitation. The property in question originally belonged to one Devalla Ramaiah. On his death, his estate vested in the Administrator General for administering the same on behalf of Ramiah's minor sons. On 18-2-1939, the Administrator General sold the property to the father of the respondent in the second appeal. But the purchaser on the same date executed the mortgage to secure a part of the price not paid at the time. The respondent' father was adjudged as insolvent in I. P. No. 46 of 1942 on the file of this court and in the insolvency, the Official Assignee, Madras sold the property to the insolvent's son, the respondent, on 23-5-1955. It appears that the responden...
The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tirunelveli Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ232
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. In proceedings taken suo motu under Section 9 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 the Miscellaneous Settlement Officer, Ramanathapuram, held that the Inam Village of Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam in Tirunelveli Taluk is not an 'Inam Estate' within the definition of Section 2(7) of the Act. The State of Madras filed an appeal from the decision to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Settlement Officer not for the reasons given by the Officer but on different grounds. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunals under the Act the State has preferred this appeal.2. The only question that arises for decision is whether the village Vellalankulam Vettuvankulam is an 'Inam Estate' under the Act.3. Two conditions must be satisfied in order to bring an inam village within the definition of Section 2(7) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 and they are, (1) the grant must have been made of a whole village or a named village and (2) the grant must have ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›