Chennai Court January 1964 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. P. Ramaswamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad443
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent, of an offence Under Section 15 (2) (a) and (d) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act 1939 read with Section 45(2) (a) of the Act for non-maintenance of true and complete accounts and wilful submission of untrue returns during the year 1955-56, by the fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras.2. The respondent is a dealer in coffee works at No. 8r C. A. Road, Washermenpet, and was an assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Washermenpet. He reported a gross and net turnover of Rs. 3,85,693-9-0 for the year 1955-56, while the actual income was Rs 3,87,344-12-9. The respondent was also charged that during the year 1955-56 he suppressed the transactions amounting to Rs. 3,02,399-14-0 with one B. Anantaswami, proprietor Boothalinga Agencies, Kilpauk. The taxing authorities assessed the respondent for a total turnover of Rs. 6,89, 745. The respondent preferred an appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaiah Odayar Vs. Panchapakesa Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad513
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This civil revision petition arises from an interlocutory finding reached by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvarur in 0. S. No. 47 of 1962, holding that the determination of amount of rent Under Section 3 (3) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants* Protection Act will not be res judicata in a suit filed by the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent. Normally. I would have dismissed this civil revision petition on the short ground that it is not the practice of this Court to interfere: with interlocutory findings given by a Subordinate Court when the main matter before it had not finally been disposed of. That rule is a sound one, for the aggrieved party can always challenge the correctness of such findings in any appeal that he may file if the Judgment in the suit or proceeding ultimately goes against him. But it is unnecessary for me to adopt that procedure now for I find that the view taken fry the learned District Munsif is entirely correct and is supp...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Parthasarathy Vs. C.S. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad176
(1) This appeal filed in forma pauperis arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by the appellant, the fourth son of one Srinivasachari. The latter inherited considerable properties from his own father who bore the same name. The family was indebted even at the time of the appellant's grandfather, who, during his lifetime, had executed two mortgages Exs. B. 31 and B. 4 over the suit properties. On 23-5-1925, the appellant's father and his nephew executed a mortgage over the suit properties, Ex. A. 3, in favour of Vaitheeswara Aiyar and Govinda Aiyar to secure a sum of Rs. 27, 350. It is not disputed that the money raised under that mortgage went in for necessary purposes of the family. The mortgagors executed on 29-9-1919, Ex. B. 13, a sale of almost all their properties in favour of one Balakrishna Mudaliar, directing the vendee to discharge the mortgage under Ex. A. 3; but the vendee failed to do so. The mortgagee under Ex. A. 3 instituted on 16-3-1927 a suit, O. S. No. 59 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Advocate General, Madras Vs. S. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad336; 1965CriLJ223
(1) The respondent, once s Sub Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service on the 3rd April 1956. The validity of his dismissal forms the subject matter of a writ petition (W. P. No. 749 of 1963) on the file of this court. When the petition was pending presumably coming to know that Srinivasan J. was likely to hear and dispose of the writ petition, a letter has been sent by the respondent to the learned Judge on the 11th September 1963. that the respondent wrote this letter is not now disputed. Therein he has stated that in the disciplinary proceedings leading up to his dismissal, the officers of the police department have fabricated false documents and committed forgery and allied offences and that the enquiry officer had further tampered with a document which was filed by him to disprove the charges against him. He then proceeded to state:"A mere reading of my writ petition in W. P. No. 749 of 1963 and connected paper will convince the Honourable Judges of the High Court, Madras...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rajamal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ286
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. This revision case arises out of a complaint filed by the District Registrar, Coimbatore against the petitioners under Section 64 read with Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, for having executed and got registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore, a deed of 'exchange' as a 'settlement deed' with intent to defraud the State by their failure to give full facts regarding the value of the properties and the nature of the transaction. The document purported to make over the A schedule properties therein belonging to the petitioners 2 and 3 to the first petitioner and her minor daughter in exchange for the properties described in the B schedule belonging to the first petitioner subject to the encumbrances set out in the C schedule. It was found on investigation that the A schedule properties were worth only Rs. 18,500 while the B schedule properties were worth Rs. 1,67,020 and that by getting the document registered, the State had been defrauded to the tu...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay Vs. Parvathavardhini Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad357
Ramamurti, J.(1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India (Unit: The Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co., Ltd, Bombay) hereinafter called the Company is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent, Srimathi Parvathavardhini Ammal, is the widow of one V. S. N. C. Narasimhan Chettiar, (hereinafter referred to as the assured or V. S. N. C.), has filed the suit O. S. No. 62 of 1958 on the file of the sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli to recover a sum of Rs. 20,000 due under an insurance policy No. 1733287 dated 22-5-1954 and a sum of Rs. 30,000 due under another insurance policy No. 1855372 dated 26-3-1955 on the ground that the said policies were accepted at the ordinary rate by the Insurance company certifying the life of V. S. N. C. Aforesaid as a first class one by four eminent doctors of the company, that the plaintiff (respondent) was the nominee under the aforesaid two policies, that the said assured died on 20-5-1955, on account of coronary thrombosis which attack set in on 17-...
Tag this Judgment!Gumanmal, Proprietor Sha Chandanmal Gumanmal Vs. Greenfield Co. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad372
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The only point involved in this proceeding by the plaintiff in the court below, who originally obtained an ex parte decree against the defendant, which decree was ultimately set aside by the learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, is that the application of the defendant (respondent) was barred under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, because the date of the decree must be held to be the commencement of limitation and not the date when the applicant (respondent) came to have knowledge of the decree. Very simply stated, the argument is that, in the trial, the court ordered 'substituted service' within the meaning of Order 5 rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that such service was actually effected. Such service is as real and effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally, in the context of the words 'due service' in Article 164 of the Limitation Act; the authority of the Bench decision in Shariba v. Abdul Salam, 55 MLJ 565: AIR 1...
Tag this Judgment!T. Namberumal Chetty and Sons Vs. State of Madras Represented by the A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ439
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are related Revision Proceedings, sought to be instituted by Messrs. T. Namberumal Chetty & Sons (landlords) from the order of the Courts below, with regard to the fixation of fair rent. The only point upon which these proceedings have been pressed, for admission, by learned Counsel for revision petitioner (landlords) appears to me to be so clearly concluded by the explicit language of the statute, that I have no hesitation in dismissing these proceedings in limine.2. As far as I am able to understand the relevant provisions of Sections 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the area to be taken into consideration, as far as the market value under Section 4(2)(b)(ii) is concerned, is, in the very words of that subsection 'that portion of the site on which the residential building is constructed.' To argue from the fact that 'building' is defined in Section 2(2)(a) of the Act as inclusive of 'the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such b...
Tag this Judgment!Mylaswami Pandaram Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad77; 1965CriLJ186
(1) This is a petition filed by the husband against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate holding that a protection order by the insolvency Court cannot take away the powers of the magistrate for ordering the petitioner's imprisonment under Section 488, Cri. P. C. for failure to comply with the Court's order.(2) The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The respondent-wife filed a petition M. C. No. 10 of 1961 under S. 488(1), Cri P. C. on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollcahi. The Court granted the respondent and her children maintenance of Rs. 60 per mensem. The respondent filed C. M. P. No. 58 of 1963 under S. 488 clause (3) for payment of Rs. 720 being the arrears of maintenance. A warrant was issued by the Court for distress of the petitioner's properties. Again the wife filed C. M. P. 81 of 1963 on 10-6-1963 for a warrant for arrest of the petitioner. A non-bilabial warrant for arrest was issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Poll...
Tag this Judgment!Manicka Gounder Vs. Arunachala Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad1
(1) This appeal, which has been filed against the judgment of Jagadisan J. raises an important question relating to the construction of S. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, which, for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to as the "Act". The precise form of the question before us is."Whether on the death of the sole surviving coparcener of a joint Hindu Mitakshara family, the widow of a predeceased coparcener, entitled to the benefits of the Act, will take by survivorship the entire family property?In Manorama Bai v. Rama Bai, a Bench of this court, while answering that question in the affirmative, held that by virtue of S. 3(2) of the Act, the widow, after her husband's death, will become a coparcener with the surviving male members of the family and that she would, on the death of the sole surviving coparcener take the joint family property to the exclusion of an heir of the latter. This view is fundamentally opposed to the concept of a coparcenery under the Mita...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »