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.
P. Kasinathan and ors. Vs. Chief Sectetary to Govt. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ85
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This group of writ petitions under Article 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 detenu 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 Rule 30(4), ...
P. Kasinathan and ors. Vs. the Chief Secretary to Government of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ53
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. This group of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Cons titution for the issue of writs of habeas corpus in the concerned cases, raises questions of the constitutional propriety, legality and good faith of therelevant 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 detenu 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 Rule...
Gopalsami Naidu Vs. Perumal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad190
(1) This revision arises on order made by the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur on a check slip with reference to a document, which the defendant had filed along with his written statement. It purports to be the counterpart of an agreement, and the learned District Munsiff has taken the view that it would not come under Exemption (a) to Art. 5 of Indian Stamp Act. A reading do the agreement shows that it relates to a purchase of mango trees as felled timber, and the executant, who has already paid a sum of Rs. 425 as advance, agrees to pay the balance of Rs. 375 within the time stipulated and cut and remove the trees. The short question for consideration is whether the agreement could be considered to be one "for or relating to the sale of goods or merchandise exclusively", in which case it will come under the exemption. The matter is covered by direct authority. The Allahabad High Court has in re, Raj Balagmir, AIR 1931 All 392 (FB), while considering a similar agreement., held tha...
N. Subramaniam, Golden Transports, Tiruttani Vs. A.K. Raman, Raman Tra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad232
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of our learned brother Srinivasan, J. quashing the order of the Regional Transport authority, Chingleput in a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act for the variation of a stage carriage route. The appellant before us who was plying his buses on the route Madras to Tiruttani applied in 1961 for the variation of the route as Madras to Ammavarikuppam via Tiruttani. The first respondent in the appeal has been operating on a portion of the route sought to be covered by the varied route, the first respondent's buses running between Tiruttani and Sholinghur via Ammavarikuppam. On the appellant securing the variation as prayed for from the Regional Transport authority by its order dated 25-11-1961, the first respondent preferred a revision to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras(hereinafter referred to as the S.T.A.T) and the Tribunal by its order dated 5-5-1962 remanded the matter back to the Regional Transport authority (hereinafter referred...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. N.S. Getti Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ112
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The question for decision referred to us in this case is:Whether there was a gift by N.S. Getti Chettiar of Rs. 2,47,376 on which he is liable to pay gift-tax 2. N.S. Getti Chettiar, the assessee, was the kartha of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his son, Goyindaraju Chettiar who had six sons. There was a partition of immovable properties by a registered deed executed on 17th January, 1958, and of movable properties by entries in the books on 13th April, 1958. On 29th November, 1958, the claim of the assessee for partition was granted by the department. The total value of the joint family properties so divided was. Rs. 8,51,440. Though the half-share of Getti Chettiar would be Rs. 4,25,720, he took only Rs. 1,78,343, the balance being allotted to his son and grandsons.3. The Gift-tax Officer held that no reasons were advanced by the assessee for allotting a share far in excess of half-share to the other members of the family and that, therefore, t...
Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras Vs. N. S. Getti Chetttiar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR454(Mad)
KAILASAM J. - The question for decision referred to us in this case is :'Whether there was a gift by N. S. Getti Chettiar of Rs. 2,47,376 on which he is liable to pay gift-taxi ?'N. S. Getti Chettiar, the assessee, was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his son, Govindaraju Chettiar, who had six sons. There was partion of immovable properties by a registered deed exected on January 17, 1958 and of moveable properties by entries in the books on April 13, 1958. On November 29, 1958, The claim of the assessee for partition was granted by the department. The total value of the joint Family properties so divided was Rs. 8,51,440. Though the half share of Getti Chettiar would be Rs. 4,25,720 he took only Rs. 1,78,343 the balance being allotted to his son and grandsons.The Gift-tax Officer held that no reasons were advanced by the assessee for allotting a share far in excess of half share to the other members of the family and that, therefore, there had been a gif...
V.N. Krishnaswamy Vs. Collector of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad341; [1966]61ITR333(Mad); (1966)2MLJ480
(1) The question referred to us under S. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 is:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the house property No. 5 Avenue Road, Nungambakam, Madras standing in the name of Smt. Parvathi Ammal was correctly included in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass under S. 10 of the Act?"The site on which the house was built was purchased by P. Natesan, deceased, on 18-7-1929, in the name of his wife, Smt. Parvathi Ammal out of his own funds. By the following year, he constructed a house on the site. Since then and until his death, the deceased was residing with his wife in the house. The income from the property was being assessed to income-tax in the hands of the deceased. The property also was admitted as his by the deceased in the wealth statements filed by him on 31-3-1942, and as on 31-3-1952. Some time before his death it is not clear from the record, when this happened, a loan of Rs. 35000 was raised by the deceased from ...
Safdar HussaIn and ors. Vs. S.K. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad4; 1967CriLJ84
ORDER(1) These are related criminal revision proceedings involving the same question of law. In all of them, the concerned revision petitioners were respective accused in prosecutions under S. 78(c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958. I may here state, purely for the purpose of setting forth the background of the facts, that S. 78(c) relates to the making, disposal or possession of any instrument for the purpose of falsification of a trade mark. The broad allegation was that, with respect to the Tajmahal trade mark beedies, the concerned revision petitioners were found in possession of counterfoil blocks and other articles which would bring them within the mischief of the offence defined in S. 78(c).(2) It appears that, originally the police of Tiruchirapalli registered a case under SS. 420 and 120-B I. P. C. against the revision petitioners, and conducted investigation into that case. A charge sheet under those sections of the Penal Code was ultimately filed, and we are...
Flarence Chelliah Vs. Soundararaj Peter and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ33
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner filed an application for probate which bore a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 5 under Article 11(k)(ii)(2) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The applicant herself had impleaded a number of respondents of whom the first three, her brothers, objected to the grant of probate on certain grounds. In view of this contention, the Court below directed that the application should be registered as a suit and Court-fee paid under the proviso to Article 11(k). This petition is to revise that order.2. It is argued that the proviso will have application only if a caveat is entered and not merely when an application is registered as a suit. The proviso is:Provided that if a caveat is entered and the application is registered as a suit, one-half the scale of fee prescribed in Article 1 of Schedule I on the market value of the estate less the fee already paid on the application shall be levied. I shall presently consider what a caveat means. Section ...
Minor Sangiliveerappa Balasubramanian Pandian Alias Kuttiraja and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ169
M. Natesan, J.1. These appeals under Section 51 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948(hereinafter referred to as the Act) relate to the Sivagiri Zamin in Tirunelveli District which was notified and taken over by the Government under the Act on 3rd January, 1961.2. Sivagiri Zamin is an ancient ancestral impartible Estate, impartible by custom and included in the Schedule to the Madras Estates Act of 1904. On the date of the notification of the Estate under the Act, one Varaguna Rama Pandia Chinnathambiar was the zamindar or proprietor of the estate and, therefore, the principal landholder of the Estate under the Act. He had then two sons by his first wife and one son by his second wife. He had also two illegitimate sons by his concubine. Long after the notification, by his second wife, he had another son called Kuttiraja and he is the first appellant in these appeals, his mother being the second appellant. The principal landholder, Varaguna Rama Pandia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »