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.
Eleavarthi Nadipatha Alias Ramaswami Raju and ors. Vs. Elavarthi Pedda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad346
ORDER(1) The defendants in a suit which was permitted to be withdrawn at the appellate stage with liberty to file a fresh suit are the petitioners before me. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration and injunction on the averments inter alia, that in an earlier partition suit wherein there was a compromise decree Ex.A-2 the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff, and that while the plaintiff had been in separate and exclusive possession of the same, the defendants without any right threatened to cut and carry away the crops. According to the defendants amongst other pleas it was contended that the suit property was not divided. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his exclusive right to the property. In the plaint, the suit properties are given survey numbers. In correlating it with a compromise decree the plaintiff referred to an item of the extent of 3 acres and 37 cents shown as Sowdabavi Kindamadi east of the Sowdabavi...
Muhammad Abdul Razack Vs. Syed Meera Ummal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad212
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for declaration of her one-fourth share in the suit property and for partition of the same by metes and bounds.(2) The suit property is a garden land of an extent of 40 cents with coconut plantations. The respondent based her title to the property on the foot of a document executed by her grand-mother on 27th October 1942, providing life interest for herself. After the demise of the grandmother, mutation was effected in the name of the respondent and she was paying the tax. Even during the lifetime of the respondent's grandmother, her undivided one fourth share was leased to the appellant(defendant) and therefore even after the death of the grandmother the appellant continues to be a lessee. In the meantime the respondent's father divorced her mother. Therefore her mother married a second time and the respondent was living with her mother. Her marriage was performed by her mother. In 1963, the respondent came to know that her...
V.S. Mani Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad429; [1966]60ITR810(Mad); (1966)2MLJ110
1. This reference under S. 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act turns on construction of the words "to the extent" in S. 10 of the Act. S. Vaidyanatha Iyer died on 5-9-1958. On 8-6-1956 he addressed the Kumbakonam Bank Ltd, informing it of his intention that the 'two fixed deposits, one for Rs. 15000 and the other for Rs. 10000, should be taken by his second son V. S. Mani and requesting the Bank to pay the principal and interest due on the deposits on maturity to him. On 11-10-1956 V. S. Mani advised the bank that the interest due on the two deposits might be credited to the current account of his father Vaidyanatha Iyer. Both the letters were given effect to by the Bank as intimated by it on 15-10-1956. It appears that the fixed deposits matured for payment on 14th and 15 October 1956.The Assistant Controller rejected the contention of the accountable person that the gift was made bona fide more than two years before the death of the deceased and did not attract estate duty in view of the pr...
In Re: Basha Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ707Mad
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. The petitioner, Basha Khan, has been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for violation of Rule 100(2) of the rules framed under the Factories Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to simple imprisonment for one week. The charge against the petitioner was that as manager of the Basha Khan rice mills, 83, Bazar Street, Athur, he had failed to furnish on or before 31 July 1964, the half-yearly return in form 22 for the half-year ending with 30 June 1964. The defence of the petitioner was that by virtue of a registered lease deed, Ex. D. 1, dated 1 March 1962, he had leased the rice mill and entrusted the management of the mill to the lessees. The petitioner examined D.W.I, Venkatakrishnan, one of the lessees, In support of his case.2. The learned District Magistrate has negatived the plea of the petitioner as he doubted whether Ex. D. 1 had been acted upon at all; but the reasons given by him for doubting Ex. D. 1 are hardly convincing. ...
In Re : Basha Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1140
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The petitioner, Basha Khan, has been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act, for violation of Rule 100(2) of the Rules framed under the Factories Act, and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 25, in default to simple imprisonment for one week, The charge against the petitioner was that as Manager of the Bashakhan Rice Mills, 83 Bazar Street, Athur, he had failed to furnish on or before 31.7.1904, the half yearly return in form No. 22, for the half year ending with 30.6.1904. The defence of the petitioner was that by virtue of a registered lease-deed Ex. D-1 dated 1.3.1962, he had leased the rice mill and entrusted the management of the mill to the lessees. The petitioner examined D.W. 1, Venkalakrishnan, one of the lessees in support of his case.2. The learned District Magistrate has negatived the plea of the petitioner as he doubted whether Ex. D-1 had been acted upon at all, but the reasons given by him for doubting Ex. D-1 are hardly convincing. The first rea...
P.S. Sadagopachari and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad432; 1966CriLJ1452
ORDER(1) Petition by Sadagopachari and Raghupathi, accused 4 and 6 in C. C. 14 of 1964 on the file of the Special Judge, Madras, to revise the order of the Special Judge in Crl. M. P. No. 32 of 1965 in the said case overruling their preliminary objections with regard to the competency of the Collector of Customs to file the complaint in this case and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the same.(2) The difficulty that has arisen in this case is not likely to occur in future after the enactment of the new Customs Act 52 of 1962. The Collector of Customs has preferred a complaint against the petitioners and others under S. 120B read with Ss. 161, 165, 165-A I.P.C. Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947; Sec. 5(2) of the said Act read with S. 109 I.P.C. And S. 167 clauses 75, 76 and 81 of the Customs Act read with Ss. 19 and 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act apart from other specific offences against the individual accused. The Prev...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. City Motor Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR418(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - Whether a sum of Rs. 55,040 is allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xi) or 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is the question referred to us under section 66(2) of the Act. The assessee is a private company, which originally was engaged as a transport operator in stage carriages; but during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58 with which we are concerned, it diverted itself to the business of body-building. For the assessment year it declared a loss of Rs. 638. Among other things, the Income-tax Officer by an order dated December 31, 1957, declined to allow deduction of the sum of Rs. 55,040 and brought it to tax. In his view, this sum could not be treated as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) of the Act.Sungo Limited was private firm which had directors common to it and the assessee. The assessee had transactions with Sungo Limited from 1942 and was financing the latter from time to time with various sums on interest. The interest whi...
Manicka Gounder Vs. Samikannu Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad397
ORDER(1) This appeal arises out of execution proceedings in O. S. 297 of 1961, a suit instituted by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit property dated 13-6-1959 executed by the appellant to the respondent. The suit itself was compromised and a consent decree was passed in and by which the respondent (plaintiff) 15-11-1962 and also deposit the necessary general stamp papers into court for the appellant to reconvey the property to the respondent on such deposit of the said amount by the respondent. The respondent did not deposit the amount as mentioned in the said decree on or before 15-11-1962 but filed F. P. 605 of 1962 on 26-11-1962, after depositing the sum of Rs.800 any praying the court that the appellant might be directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent as per the terms of the compromise decree. By abundant caution, the respondent filed M. P. 935 of 1962 in O. S. 297 of 1961 for extension of time for payment of the said s...
In Re : Kamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1021
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding involves the interesting question, whether an accused can be convicted under Section 8(b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Central Act 104 of 1956), in the absence of the testimony of the person who was solicited for prostitution by the accused. Section 8(b) of the Act runs as follows:Whoever in any public place.... (b) solicits or molests any person, or loiters or acts in such manner as to cause obstruction or annoyance to persons residing nearby or passing by such public place or to offend against public decency, for the purpose of prostitution.2. In the present case, admittedly, the only evidence on the record with regard to the gravamen of this charge is that of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 1), who made the arrest. He states that on 1.10.1963 at 10 p.m. he found the revision petitioner (Kamala) 'gaudily dressed, bedecked with flowers, and behaving in an indecent manner as to offend against...
G. Ramasundaram and ors. Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats (District Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1965
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ318
M. Natesan, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise a common question, the validity of the rules relating to the mariner arid method of election of members to the village panchayats under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, she contention being that the rules arc void for the reasons that there has been excessive delegation of essential legislative functions to the Executive. The facts in Writ Petition No. 596 of 1965, typical of the petitions may be briefly set out. This relates to Hanumanthapatti village panchayat in Periakulam Taluk, Madurai district. There had been an election to the Panchayat under the Madras Act XXV of 1958 (hereinafter referred, to as the Act) in 1959. The election which has given raise to the present petition was held on 2nd February, 1965, and under the provisions of the Act the election authority declared respondents 4 to 16 in the writ petition as duly elected members of the panchayat. The petition has been preferred by a voter of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »