Chennai Court March 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.
Raichand Nethaji Vs. Sayar Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad173; (1965)2MLJ168
ORDER1. Petition under Ss. 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act for appointing the petitioner as guardian of his minor daughter-in-law Chandra Bai, aged 16 years. Minor Chandra Bai was married to the petitioner's son R. Mangilal Mehta. The said Mangilal Mehta died on 24th May 1964 as a result of an explosion in a godown in Govindappa Naicken Street, on 19th May 1964. He had taken a multiple risk policy with the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 28th March 1964 on his life. The petitioner's case is that he is entitled to be appointed as guardian of the minor under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956.(2) This application is opposed by Srimathi Sayar Bai, the mother of minor Chandra Bai and also by Udairaj Gulecha, a cousin of minor Chandra Bai. Neither side adduced oral evidence in this case. In fact the petitioner was not even present in court and I was therefore unable to put questions to him in respect of the several allegations made against him in para 10 of the c...
Vazhakulangarayil Safiya Bi and anr. Vs. Ariyur Abdul Shukoor Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad375
(1) This appeal, which involves a very interesting question of what is claimed to be a conflict in the case law needing elucidation, arises upon the following facts. We might state, at the outset itself, that the facts are not in controversy.(2) On 7-10-1954 one A. Abdul Shukoor Sahib (plaintiff) conveyed the suit property 2/74 Sydenhams Road, Periamet. Madras to the first defendant for Rs. 8000 by a registered sale-deed. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant, claimed to be acting throughout on her behalf. The Parties entered into an agreement in writing (Ex. A 1) on the same date. Under this agreement, the first defendant undertook to reconvey the same property to the plaintiff on payment of the sum of Rs. 8000 within a period of five years from 7-10-1954, it being equally agreed that the plaintiff should exercise the right of repurchase, if he desired to do so, after 7-10-1958 and on or before 7-10-1959. Admittedly, the first defendant entered into possession of...
K.M. Jaina Beevi and ors. Vs. M.K. Govindaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad369
(1) Appeal 26 of 1964: This appeal by the defendants turns on enforceability against the third defendant, a Muslim, minor, of an agreement which he had entered into on 12-2-1961 with the respondent to lease out premises No. 34 General Patters Road, Madras after reconstruction and put him back in possession thereof. The premises were purchased in the name of the minor in 1954. The respondent continued to be a tenant of a major portion of the premises even after the purchase. In November 1960, on behalf of the minor a notice to quit the premises was served on the respondent on the ground that the existing structure had to be pulled down and a new building raised with ground and first floors and that a plan of the proposed construction had already been sanctioned by the Corporation. The respondent replied on 22-11-1960 stating that there had been an oral discussion on the matter between him and the minor's father, the second defendant, and that it was agreed that the respondent might tem...
R. Ganesan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR411(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a prominent film artiste. In the account year relevant to the assessment year 1960-61, he constructed a house at a cost of over Rs. 1,25,000. This property stands in the name of his wife. It was found as a fact in the assessment proceedings that the assessee had given a sum of Rs. 75,000 to his wife for the purpose of this construction. The Income-tax Officer took the view that since that was a transfer of this volume of an asset to the wife and that transfer was not for adequate consideration, the proportionate income from the property should be included in the income of the assessee. He computed three-fifths of the income as so includible in the assessment of the assessee. The assessee appealed. One of the points raised was that there was no transfer of any asset to the wife which could be brought under section 16(3) of the Act. The Contention was that the assessee had only advanced funds for the purpose of con...
S. Paramasiva Mudaliar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR283(Mad)
SRINIVASN J. - The question that stands referred to us is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a deliberate concealment of income or keeping back of particulars to attract the operation of section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?'The facts are briefly these. The assessee is a registered partnership firm doing business in grocery. For the account year ended April 12, 1955, relevant to the assessment year 1955-56, a return of income of Rs. 20,861 was made. An examination of the account books of the assessee revealed, between May and October of 1954, credits amounting to Rs. 47,800 in the day-book. The day-book indicated the credits as under suspense account. But the suspense account which was maintained by the assessee contained no entries. The relevant ledger purported to record certain credits and withdrawals of credits, but those entries were in most cases made either in the first of the last line of the ledg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›