Chennai Court February 1965 Judgments
P. Jayader Vs. Thiruneelakanta Nadar Chinnaneela Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ278
M. Natesan, J.1. This Second Appeal is from the decree of the lower appellate Court which inter alia has granted certain reliefs for injunction in favour of the plaintiffs with reference to a private temple which is the subject-matter of the suit. The defendant now represented in the Second Appeal by his legal representatives objected particularly to the injunction directing the removal of a board with a sacred manthra on it from the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and for the demolition of certain new constructions put up with a direction to restore the temple to its original structures.2. The parties are referred to as they figured in the trial Court. The twoplantiff's and the sole defendant were brothers and sons of one Thiruneelakanta Nadar. This Thiruneelakanta Nadar pre-deceased his father Karankattan Nadar. The family is a rich and prosperus one in the locality and the evidence is that the plaint property which is temple in which the family deity Neelaswami is worshipped has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Veeraswamy Naicker and anr. Vs. Alamelu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad442; (1965)2MLJ188
(1) The defendants appeal against a reversing judgment arising form a suit for a declaration of the title of the respondents and for recovery of possession of a site measuring 92 ft by 36 ft as Adambakkam. On 29-4-1933, the first defendant took a lease of the A schedule property from the plaintiff and his brother on a certain rental. In 1935 at a partition between the brothers, the plaintiff became the owner of the northern half of the property owner of the northern half of the property covered by the original lease. Thereafter the first defendant surrendered the southern half but continued to occupy the northern half. Since the lease was terminable by a month's notice, the plaintiff terminated it by a notice dated 30-6-1958. The first defendant then denied the plaintiff's title on the ground that he had purchased the northern half of the site from the plaintiff. The plaintiff by another notice purported to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the first defendant denied his title ...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Narasimhan Vs. Narayana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ48
ORDERP. Ramamurthi, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application filed by the defendant for sending two documents to the handwriting expert Mr. Dixit of Nagpur or Mr. Mahajan of Bangalore for ascertaining their opinion about the genuineness of the disputed signatures.2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 10,000 and odd due on a mortgage executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs' deceased father. The defendant is resisting the suit on the ground that the entire mortgage debt had been discharged and in support of that plea he has relied upon two documents : (1) A receipt, dated 30th March, 1954, alleged to have been passed in his favour acknowledging the payment of Rs. 10,000 and odd; and (ii) the letter, dated 9th December, 1955, written to him evidencing this plea of discharge.3. As the genuineness of the signatures in the documents was disputed the defendant at an earlier stage filed Interlocutory Application No. 248 of 1964, for ...
Tag this Judgment!M. HussaIn Ali and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR787(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - This reference raises a question relating to imposition of penalties under the Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax Acts. The relevant account year and the chargeable accounting period both ended on 31st March, 1943. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in paper and stationery on a large scale. For the assessment year in question, an income of Rs. 73,492 was returned, and after deducting the excess profits tax therefrom, the income taxable under the Indian Income-tax Act was Rs. 47,405. Some discrepancies in the accounts of the company were noticed after the completion of the original assessments. Action under section 34 of the Income-tax Act was started. In the course of those proceedings, the Income-tax Officer held that sales had not been brought to account and estimated the volume of such sales at Rs. 1,00,000. Though this amount was only the estimated omitted turnover, the Income-tax Officer added this amount as escaped...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd., Madras Vs. M. Kothan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad54
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) These appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,750 as damages, out of which plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 20,000 from the Indian Mutual General Insurance Society(second defendant in the suit), with regard to a fatal accident to his son subbanna, aged 18 years. The learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput tried the action on the merits, and gave a decree for Rs. 7500 due from both defendants, with proportionate costs. The Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. Madras(second defendant) has instituted the main appeal from this judgment and decree, which is on the substantial merits as well as on the quantum of damages, namely A.S. 162 of 1961. A.S. 309 of 1961 is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit, which is limited to the ground that the quantum of damages ought to have been determined as at least Rs. 15000 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.(2) A fact, which is of some relevance in the situation before us, ...
Tag this Judgment!Milapchand R. Shah and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR525(Mad)
The Judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - M. R. Shah and P. R. Shah are the two partners in the firm of Roopchand Chabildass and Sons. The firm was carrying on a business in the manufacture and sale of wheat and gram products, besides doing money-lending business. In the Samvat year 2010, the flour mills business of the firm was transferred to a limited company. Each partner invested in the shares of this company, and for purpose of doing so, they were financed through their drawings account with the firm. The firm had made heavy borrowings upon which it had paid interest in the Samvat years 2011 and 2012. It borrowings during these two years amounts Rs. 12,50,000 and Rs. 11,00,000 roughly. During these years, P. R. Shah had taken advances to the tune of Rs. 3,30,000 and Rs. 4,26,000 and odd, and M. R. Shah had similarly taken advances of Rs. 1,50,000 and Rs. 2,50,000 roughly. In addition to this, the firm had also paid income-tax on behalf of the partners. In the cours...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Port Trust Vs. K.P.A.T. Annamalai Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Mad42
(1) This appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, on leave granted by Venkatadri J. who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the Courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,774.31 the value of the goods not delivered.(2) The brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these: the first plaintiff is clearing and forwarding agent at Madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at Sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiff, will be the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs are the goods from Tokyo, Japan, of the red phosphorous, amorphous, bearing marks P. K. J. 1 to 10 numbers and described as ten wooden cases of KDK brand. On the arrival of the ship, s.s. Azumasan Maru at Madras the plaintiff submitted their import application, Ex. A-15, and the Port Trust authorities offered to deliver them ten classes of bearing Nos. 4 and 9, and 8 other cases with different numbers ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Mohideen Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad461; 1965CriLJ516
ORDER(1) This is a novel case. The petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate passed on 24-9-1944, granting pardon under S. 337 Cr.P.C. to one Gurunathan. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the grounds on which he seeks the relief can be summarised thus:(2) The first is that S. 337 Cr.P.C. which provides the rule for tendering pardon to an accomplice on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other persons concerned, is a provision which is opposed to all principles of law, criminal jurisprudence and natural justice. Such a provision for tendering pardon to an accomplice for the purpose of securing 'King's evidence' as it is commonly known in English Law, has existed for a long time as one of the recogn...
Tag this Judgment!O. R. Abdul Rahim and Others Vs. Ii-income-tax Officer and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR273(Mad)
P. CHANDRA REDDY C.J. - These writ petitions involve the interpretation of section 24B and 26(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question is to be decided by us arises in the following circumstances. One Rahiman Sahib was carrying on business at Singapore, Johore and Kota Tingi in the Federated Malay States. He died on October 5, 1950, leaving behind him a will dated July 10, 1939, with a codicil executed on June 18, 1947. Under the will, he appointed his three sons as the executors and trustees. The codicil provided, inter alia, for the division of the profits of the foreign business amongst the legal heirs in the shape of allowances, remuneration and share of profits. In respect of the profits and gains derived by the said Rahiman Sahib from his business for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52, notices were issued to him under section 22(2) of the Act; but, before they could be complied with, Rahiman Sahib died. Consequently, his legal representative filed returns, disclosing income whic...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Port Trust, Represented by the Chairman Vs. K.P.A.T. Annama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ594
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent has been preferred, on leave granted by Venkatadri, J., who, in second appeal, reversing the decision of the Courts below, upheld the claim of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 3,774-31 the value of goods not delivered.2. The brief facts of the case, on which the rights and liabilities of the parties will have to be considered, are these. The first plaintiff is a clearing and forwarding agent at Madras for the second plaintiff, a firm of merchants at Sivakasi and the reference hereafter as the plaintiff's, will be of the second plaintiff. The plaintiff's are the consignee of goods from Tokyo, Japan, of ten cases of red phosperous, amorphous, bearing marks P.K.J., 1 to 10 numbers and described as 10 wooden cases of KDK brand. On the arrival of the ship, s.s. Azumasan Maru at Madras the plaintiff submitted their import application, Exhibit A-15, and the Port Trust authorities offered to deliver them ten cases of P.K.J. bearing Nos. 4 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »