Chennai Court November 1965 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.
Devasahayam Nadar Savarimuthu Nadar (Deceased), by L.Rs. Vs. Poothatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ258
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants. The suit was filed for redemption ofplaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. In this appeal we are not concerned with 'B' schedule properties. The plaint 'A' schedule properties originally belonged to one Padmanabha Pillai Madhavan Pillai of Vadavankara House. He mortgaged the plaint 'A' schedule properties to the father of defendants 1 to 3 and the grandfather of defendants 4 to 9. The plaintiff obtained a sub-mortgage of the properties on 21-1-1091 and was-in enjoyment thereafter. Padmanabha Pillai Madhavan Pillai executed an otti and kuzhikanam deed to the plaintiff under Exhibit A-3 on5-9-1097, directing the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage of the year 1095 executed by the mortgagor in favour of defendants 1 to 3. On 12-3-1099 Padmanabha Pillai. Madhavan Pillai executed a melotti and kuzhikanam deed to defendants 1 to 3,. the father of defendants 4 and 5 and the father of defendants 6 to 9, directing ...
Japagnanam (L.R.'s of the deceased Devasahayam Nadar Savarimuthu Nadar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ243
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The legal representatives of the plaintiff are the appellants The suit was filed for redemption of plaint A and B Schedule properties. In this appeal we are not concerned with B Schedule properties. The plaint A Schedule properties originally belonged to one Padmanabha Pillai Madavan Pillai of Vadavankara house. He mortgaged the plaint A Schedule properties to the father of defendants, 1 to 3 and the grandfather of defendants 4 to 9. The plaintiff obtained a sub-mortgage of the properties on 21-1-1091 and was in enjoyment thereafter Padmanabha Pillai Madhavan Pillai executed an melotti and kuzhikanam deed to the plaintiff under Exhibit A-3 on 5-9-1097 directing the plaintiff to redeem the mortgage of the year 1095 executed by the mortgagor in favour of defendants 1 to 3. On 12-3-1099 Padmanabha Pillai Madhavan Pillai executed a melotti and kuzhikkanam deed to defendants 1 to 3, the father of defendants 4 and 5 and the father of defendants 6 to 9, directing them to r...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras Vs. M. K. Harihara Iye ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR225(Mad)
KAILASAM, J. - The two questions that are referred to us for decision under section 60(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, are : (1) Whether the Commissioner has no power to set aside suo motu the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner under section 34 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, and (2) Whether the receipt of an amount due to her (deceased wife) during the lifetime of the deceased wife and actually received by the husband, is an income to be clubbed with the income from the properties inherited by her husband.The assessee is Sri M. K. Harihara Iyer on the file of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil. His wife, Lakshmi Ammal, was possessed of certain properties. She died on 22-4-1125 M. E. (December 7, 1949), leaving behind the assessee as her only legal representative. During her lifetime Lakshmi Ammal filed a suit, O. S. No. 89 of 1121, in the District Court, Nagercoil, against her lessee, one Paliah Nadar fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. M. V. Murugappan and Others. Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR382(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - These are two references before us involving the same question, both made at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. They relate to the assessment year 1955-56, corresponding to the accounting year ended April 12, 1955. There was a public limited company called Ajax Products Limited which was incorporated in 1939 with a paid up capital of Rs. 4.16 lakhs and authorised an issued capital of Rs. 6 lakhs. This company was engaged in the business of manufacturing abrasive paper and steel products. In September, 1944, the company purchased a spun silk mill by name Jaya Spun Silk Mill for Rs. 4,51,164, but, after working the mill for some time, sold it in February, 1946, to Mysore Spun Silk Mills Limited for Rs. 7,92,750. The company thus made a profit of Rs. 3,41,586 out of the transaction. For the assessment year 1947-48, this sum was brought to tax treating the same as business profits and a tax of Rs. 1,49,4...
Madras State Electricity Board Vs. Ambazhathingal Ithachutti Umma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ12Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Madras State Electricity Board against the order dated 25 July 1962, of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,500 to the respondent, whose son met with an accident on 16 December 1959, in the dam construction in Niligris district, under the appellant, when he was working in the job of loading and unloading. He was taken to the hospital where he died on 18 December 1959, as a result of the accident.2. The report of the supervisor was that the deceased died of sickness, in the ordinary course, while he was in-patient in the hospital and did not meet with an accident while he was on duty. The report of the medical officer of the hospital where the deceased was admitted and treated was also filed in the case. The doctor stated that the deceased was complaining of chest pain and giddiness. He found some tenderness over the substernal area of the chest and lung signs in the f...
Ramalinga Padayachi Vs. Natesa Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad461
(1) The defendant is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the sale price paid by him to the defendant and for damages suffered by him.The defendant sole the suit property along with standing chilli crops on 30-9-1954 to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed for Rs.700. One Manickam Pillai, who was the owner of S. F. No. 20/14 and 21/2, agreed to sell S. F. 21/2 to the defendant and S. F. 20/14 to one Rajammal and others Sale deeds were executed by Manickam Pillai as per agreement. When the sale deed was actually within in favour of the defendant in respect of S. F. 21/2, S. F. 20/14 was wrongly inserted. A similar mistake was committed in the case of the sale deed in favour of Rajammal. In spite of this mistake, the defendant was actually enjoying S. F. 21/2, a land of inferior quality without irrigation facilities, whereas Rajammal was enjoying S. F. 20/14, a land superior in quality having irrigation facilities. After the sale, the parties ...
In Re: Srinivasa Ayyar (P.S.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ251Mad
Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, P. S. Srinivasa Ayyar, has been convicted under Rule 16 (1) read with Rules 16 (7) and 18 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Rules (hereinafter called the rules) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10, in default, simple imprisonment for two days. The petitioner is the manager of the Tanjore Permanent Bank, Ltd., at Dindigul. The charge against him was that he failed to enter the name of P. W. 2, Narayanaswami, In the register of employment as found by P. W. 1, Rama Rao, the Assistant Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Dindigul, during his inspection at 11-45 a.m. on 14 April 1964. The contention of the petitioner was that P. W. 2, Narayanaswami, was only a caretaker at that time, though he was a watchman on an earlier date and became a peon subsequently. In fact, the manager of the Tanjors Permanent Bank at Dindigul corresponded with the Inspector of Labour In vain for clarification whether a perssn employed as a watchman during the night would be exempt-ed ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. United India Life Assurance Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1965
Reported in: [1966]62ITR610(Mad)
VEERASWAMI, J. - These references arise out of the same order of the Tribunal and related to the same assessment year 1957-58. Two of them come up at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, one under section 66(1) and the other under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the third at the instance of the assessee under section 66(1) of the Act. The assessee is a public limited company which carried on life insurance business. The Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1956 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1956), was promulgated on January 19, 1956, which was replaced by the Life Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1956 (Act 9 of 1956), which came into operation on March 21, 1956. Pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance, the management of the assessee vested in the Central Government with effect from January 19, 1956. The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (Act 31 of 1956), received the assent of the President on June 18, 1956, and came into force on July 1, 1956. T...
Kamala Vs. Madras Port Trust (by Chairman)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ690Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, refusing to award compensation to the appellant, on the ground that her husband, Devarajan, did not meet with his death as a result of an accident which arose out of, and in the course of, his employment under the respondent, the Madras Port Trust, represented by its Chairman.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are the following. Devarajan, the husband of the appellant, was a lascar in the Madras Port Trust dredger under the supervision of one Mr. Watts, an engineer. On the fateful day, namely, 6 June 1961, Devarajan reported to duty and also dropped his token at the counter. At about 6-30 p.m. on the same day, Mr. Watts, under whom the deceased was working, asked the deceased to go to his (Watts') house in St. Thomas Mount and fetch his night dinner. Accordingly, Devarajan went by cycle to the house of Mr. Watts, collected the dinner, an...
Nesamoney Daniel Vs. Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad281
(1) These appeals are directed against the order of Srinivasan J. in W.P. 123 and 124 of 1961 in which the prayers were for the issue of a writ of certiorari and consequent writ of mandamus respectively. The prior facts required for a consideration of these two appeals are briefly the following:The appellant Mrs. Nesamoney Daniel was employed as a teacher in the Government aided Primary School, Pannimade estate, Annamalais. Under the rules issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, the appellant in her capacity as a teacher of a primary school, was obliged to take an insurance policy on her life. As instructed by the Life Insurance Corporation, she presented herself for medical examination, to one Dr. K.V. Mathai, M.B.B.S. the third respondent in the two writ petitions, who was at that time employed by the estate, in which the teacher was also employed. Sometime later, she received a communication from the Life Insurance Corporation stating that the report of the third respondent show...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »