Chennai Court December 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.
General Assurance Society Ltd., Madras Vs. N.A. Mohammed HussaIn and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad388; [1966]36CompCas340(Mad)
(1) This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Chingleput, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4500 to the first respondent who sustained an injury, in an accident which occurred on 24-12-1961, while he was returning from Nagore to Madras in the delivery van of the second respondent--snuff factory (P) Ltd., MSX 6134, driven by one Jayavelu, and which van has been insured with the appellant, Messrs. The General Assurance Society Ltd, Madras, under a comprehensive policy including third party risk.(2) Tre General Assurance Society Ltd., have preferred the appeal, on the grounds that they are not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, that their obligation rests only with recompensing the insured company for the loss or damage caused to the insured car, that the accident did not occur while the first respondent was in the course of his employment and that the injured person was not the third party as per the provision ...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Subramania Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad156
(1) This revision raise the question as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the court under Section 4 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893):"Whether a sharer can claim to buy out a stranger--transferee of a share in a family dwelling house, in a suit for partition instituted not by the stranger-transferee but by a member of the family.?"(2) The facts of the case and the proceedings that have led to the controversy may be briefly set out. The revision petitioner is the third defendant in a suit for partition of three items of house properties. One Pancha Pillai and the third defendant in the suit were brothers. The first defendant is the widow of Pancha Pillai and the second defendant, their son. The 4th defendant is a purchaser from the 2nd defendant of the western half share in item (3) of the suit properties, a family, dwelling house, under a registered sale deed, Ex B 3 dated 12-11-1958. There is some evidence that the two brothers attempted a division of the properties without referen...
In Re : M.D. Kuppuswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1096
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. I am afraid, that under the circumstances of this revision proceedings, whatever the suspicions of the court might be with regard to the culpability of the two revision petitioners, both will have to be acquitted, as the criminal jurisprudence is clear that convictions cannot be based upon mere suspicion or conjecture.2. Very briefly stated, the facts are, that the two revision petitioners and one watchman were the sole personnel in charge of the Kaveripatnam Co-optex retail depot. The procedure seems to be that this depot places indents for the goods required with the Marketing Officer of the region, who duly supplies the goods for sales to customers at the depot. The two revision petitioners are, respectively, the Assistant Manager of the depot (A.1) and the Assistant Salesman (A.2). One fact is established beyond any possibility of doubt, and that is, when the Marketting officer, Salem (P.W. 1) visited the depot on 11.1.1962 and made an approximate check, ...
General Assurance Society, Ltd. Vs. N.A. Mohamed HussaIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ120
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Chingleput, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,500 to the first respondent who sustained an injury, in an accident which occurred on 24th December, 1961, while he was returning from Nagore to Madras in the delivery van of the second respondent Snuff Factory (P.), Ltd., MSX 6134, driven by one Jayavelu, and which van has been insured with the appellant, M/s. The General Assurance Society, Ltd., Madras, under a comprehensive policy including third party risk.2. The General Assurance Society, Ltd., have preferred the appeal, on the grounds that they are not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, that their obligations rest only with recompensing the insured company for the loss or damage caused to the insured car, that the accident did not occur while the first respondent was in the course of his employment and that the injured person was not a third par...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Subramania Pillai by Power-of-attorney Agent Karu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ132
M. Natesan, J.1. This revision raises the question as to the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 4 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893):Whether a sharer can claim to buy out a stranger-transferee of a share in a family dwelling house, in a suit for partition instituted not by the stranger-transferee but by a member of the family? 2. The facts of the case and the proceedings that have led to the controversy may be briefly set out. The revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in a suit for partition of three items of house properties. One Pancha Piilai and the 3rd defendant in the suit were brothers. The first defendant is the widow of Pancha Pillai and the second defendant, their son. The 4th defendant is a purchaser from the 2nd defendant of the western half-share in item (3) of the suit properties, a family dwelling house, under a registered sale deed Exhibit B-3 dated 12th November, 1956. There is some evidence that the two brothers attempted a division of the propertie...
T.V. Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ484
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The liability of thirteen life insurance policies to estate duty is in question in this Reference. Whether there was a goodwill and if there was, whether the value, as assessed by the Department for purposes of duty, is supported by material are further questions for consideration. One T.K.V.S. Vidyapcoranachari, whose widow is the accountable person, died on 17th February, 1957. He became divided from his brother on 17th August, 1935, and the 'assets, that fell to his share out of the joint family properties he developed with his own efforts so that at his death, the assets belonging to the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons were valued at Rs. 6,25,099. Besides his two sons, both minors, he left his wife and three daughters. The deceased's one-third share in the joint family properties was admittedly liable to duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty added to the principal value Rs. 1,42,552 which represented moneys due under thirteen insuranc...
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR317(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The liability of thirteen life insurance policies to estate duty is in question in this reference. Whether there was a goodwill and if there was, whether the value, as assessed by the department for purposes of duty, is supported by material are further questions for consideration. One T. K. V. S. Vidyapoornachari, whose widow is the accountable person, died on February 17, 1957. He became divided from his brother on August 17, 1935, and the assets that fell to his share out of the joint family properties, he developed with his own efforts so that at his death, the assets belonging to the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons were valued at Rs. 6,25,099. Besides his two sons, both minors he left his wife and three daughters. The deceaseds one-third share in the joint family properties was admittedly liable to duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty added to the principal value Rs. 1,42,552 which represented moneys due under thirteen insurance policie...
Sanjeevi and Co., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad390; [1966]62ITR156(Mad)
Veeraswami J. 1.This reference relates to the assessment year 1960-61 corresponding to the accounting year ended on 31-3-1960. The assessee is a firm of partnership carrying on business as a dealer in certain edible articles and also acts as a distributor for the products of the Margarine and Refined Oils Co. (P) Ltd., Bangalore, for which it is remunerated by payment of commission. For the assessment year, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 34,042, after deducting Rs. 20,199 as expenditure incurred by way of payment of brokerage. The claim for deduction was disallowed by the assessing authority, but allowed in part on appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered that the brokerage claimed as having been paid worked out at 40 percent of the profit, and as, in his view, this was excessive, he fixed a remuneration of Rs. 300 per month to each of the four agents and disallowed the excess. The assessee took the matter on further appeal to the Tribunal but unsuccessfully...
P.D. Mani and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad414
Veeraswami, J. (1) This reference under S. 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922 relates to the claim of the assessees for registration of their firm for the assessment years 1953-1954 to 1955-56, and the question for our consideration is whether the Tribunal had drawn the proper legal inference as to the existence of a valid partnership entitling the applicants to the registration of the same under S. 26-A of the Income-tax Act. We have perused the order of the Tribunal as also the statement of the case submitted by it, and we have to hesitation in answering the question against the assessees.(2) The partnership is said to have consisted of the father, P. D. Mani, and his three sons and been constituted from April 1951. The firm was not registered with the Registrar of Firms until 15-3-1955. The department declined registration for the assessment year 1952-53. The Tribunal has found that there was literally nothing to show that the sons ever participated in the business of the firm....
P. Kasinathan and ors. Vs. Chief Secretary to Govt. of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad21
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) This group of writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of Habeas Corpus in the concerned cases, raises questions of the constitutional propriety, legality and good faith of the relevant detention orders made by Government against the writ petitioners (detenus) which are of considerable interest and significance. We might immediately state that, in all the cases, the orders of detention purport to have been issued under Rule 30(1)(b) and Rule 30(4) of the Defence of India Rules 1962: in all of them, the Government of Madras state to be satisfied that the detention of the concerned detenue was necessary, in their view, to prevent him 'from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and public safety'.(2) Before proceeding to a scrutiny of the grounds upon which the orders of detention have been challenged, we might briefly state that Sri M. K. Nambiar has addressed arguments to us challenging the validity of R. 30(4) in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »