Chennai Court December 1964 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.
Kaliammal and anr. Vs. Andiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad451
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19-9-1957 executed by the first respondent herein in favour of the second respondent was not valid and binding on them (appellants).(2) The appellants are the reversioners of deceased Kaliappa Goundar. The deceased was the husband of the first defendant. He died leaving behind his widow, the first defendant (first respondent), his only daughter, Valliammal, his mother, step-mother, his sister and his sister's son. The sister and sister's son are the appellants (plaintiffs). The deceased Kaliappa Gounder gave directions to his wife Andiammal to divide his properties and in pursuance of such direction came into existence a partition arrangement Ex. A. 1 in and by which the plaint A schedule properties were allotted to the first defendant and her daughter. In the partition deed, it was stated that the first defendant would get only a life estate, that is, she was to enjoy the properties...
Abdul Hamid Sahib and ors. Vs. Rahmat Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad427; (1965)2MLJ368
Veeraswami, J. (1) This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 13,437-14-6 from the assets of her late husband Abdul Gaffur Sahib in the hands of the defendants. This sum was made up of four items of which Rupees 624 was claimed as mahar due to the respondent form her husband. This debt has been admitted by the defendants. The other three items are Rs. 7000, another sum of Rs. 1700 and a third sum of Rs, 4112-14-6 said to have been paid by the respondent to her late husband on 4-9-1948, 2-9-1953 and 22-4-1954, receptively. Her case was that these amounts were paid to the husband as deposits on the understanding that he might use the moneys as capital in his beedi business. Abdul Gaffur Sahib died on 12-11-1958, leaving his widow, the respondent, and the defendants as his heirs, and, it is common ground that the respondent is entitled to a quarter share and the defendants together to the remaining three-fourths. The main assets of ...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras Vs. Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd., U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad41; [1965]56ITR384(Mad); (1965)1MLJ333
(1) The short question that arises for determination in these petitions is, when can a question of law be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal (functioning under the Wealth Tax Act of 1957) for directing it to refer the question to the High Court under S. 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. By its order dated 30-12-1963, the Tribunal declined to refer the following question to the High Court for decision:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law holding that the assets of Rs. 18,79,563 and Rs. 19,98,449 are exempt under S. 5(1)(xxi) of the Wealth Tax Act?"The brief facts of the case are: The respondent, hereinafter referred to as "assessee", purchased a cotton spinning and weaving mill at Kadirvedu On the basis of its vendor's licence, the assessee applied to the Government on 25-2-1957 for the installation of 10000 spindles and permission was granted in that regard and also to import the spindles and other accessories from abro...
V. Manioka thevar Vs. Star Plough Works, Melur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad327; (1965)1MLJ406; MANU/TN/0222/1965
(1) The brief facts of the case are as follows. The appellant filed the suit, O. 8 No. 3 of 1964 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai, under S. 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, against the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent form manufacturing and selling certain patterns of ploughs on he ground that he respondent's conduct was an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff obtained an interim injunction in 1. A. 181 of 1964, but, on an application filed by the defendant-respondent in I. A. 182 of 1964, the interim injunction was vacated. The plaintiff has preferred the above appeals complaining that the learned District Judge should have granted the interim injunction pending disposal of the suit.(2) The plaintiff is a manufacturer and dealer engaged in the sale of ploughs and plough shares know as 'Bose ploughs' or 'plough shares' and the plaintiff's case is that in the course of the business he has been experimenting and inventing new p...
K.S. Subramania Iyer Vs. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad484; (1965)2MLJ140
(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is from the judgment of Ramakrishnan J. in A. S. 208 of 1960, and involves a point of some interest and importance regarding the scheme, and the application of certain provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955, to the established facts. It is true that the point centrally in issue is virtually concluded by the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Vajrapani Naidu v. New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., C. A. No. 264 of 1962: . Still as it has been contended before us that the elucidation in that judgment of S. 12 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereafter termed the "Act") may nevertheless not affect the particular contention of the landlord or lessor (The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. Madras) on the facts, the matter deserves careful scrutiny.(2) The background of the established facts may be set forth as follows: The plaintiffs are the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›