Chennai Court April 1965 Judgments
Veerappa Mudaliar Vs. Venugopala Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad404
(1) One Doraiswami Mudaliar married Balamani Anni in 1921. On 14-4-1921, he executed a registered settlement deed gifting items 1 and 2 of the suit properties to her absolutely but with a restraint on her powers of alienation only during his lifetime. A short while before his death in 1940 he had purchased items 3 and 4 and a suit for recovery of possession of these items was pending when he died. Even prior to this purchase he had executed a Will in 1938, bequeathing certain properties to some charities of which he had constituted the first defendant, who is the appellant, as the manager. In the suit relating to items 3 and 4 the first defendant applied to the court to be brought on record as the legal representative.The first plaintiff in the suit who is a son of a divided brother the Doraiswami, made a similar application. The latter was rejected and the first defendant was brought on record as the legal representative. The first plaintiff set up title claiming rights under another ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sayeed Vs. M.S. Mohamed Jaffar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad313; (1965)2MLJ482
Venkatadri, J. (1) This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree of this court in App. 138 of 1961, to which one of us was a party which reversed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court in O.S. 2292 of 1959.(2) This petition arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent herein for declaration that he was entitled along with the petitioner herein to manage the Wakf properties created by one Magdoom Mohamed Maracayar, the maternal uncle of the petitioner herein. The founder of the said Wakf Magdoom Mohamed Maracayar created a wakf alal aulad or family wakf by a registered deed dated 27-8-1924, appointing himself as the first Mutavalli, and after his lifetime, appointing the father of the first respondent and the father of the petitioner as joint mutavallis. The deed also provided that if one of the mutavallis died, the other should function, singly. It further provided according to the first defendant that, after the death of the tw...
Tag this Judgment!Jabamalai Mariammal and anr. Vs. A. Madalamuthu thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ7
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 who have failed in both the Courts are the appellants in this Second Appeal, which raises the question of the true interpretation and construction of a will, Exhibit A-3, left behind by one Mariammal, who died in November, 1954. She left behind her, her husband, Anthonimuthu, a son Madalamuthu Thevar, the plaintiff in the suit, a daughter, Annammal the first defendant and Jabamalai Mariammal, the second defendant, being the widow of a predeceased son. She first created a will, Exhibit A-2, dated 30th November,, 1950, under which she bequeathed a house and vacant site of an extent of ten cents T.S. 230 in Coimbatore Municipal Town to her husband, Anthonimuthu, to be taken by him with all powers of alienation and Under this will it was also provided that after the death of her husband, Anthonimuthu, the southern half in the ten cents of vacant land and the house aforesaid was to be taken by the plaintiff, Madalaimuthu with absolute powers of aliena...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Carlos, Xavier Louis Anthony Benedict Aldo Costa Vs. Stanislaus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Mad161
(1) This appeal arises out of the suit, Original Suit No. 5 of 1958, instituted in the District Court, Tirunelveli by the appellant herein, for the administration of the estate of one Joseph Costa (senior), and inter alia, to declare the alienation effected by the first defendant, as trustee of the said estate in favour of the tenth defendant, who in his turn alienated it in favour of the eleventh defendant, who, again in his turn alienated the properties in favour of the twelfth defendant invalid and not binding on the plaintiff, and for directions for the proper disposal of the properties comprised in the suit estate, and alternatively to direct the alienees from the first defendant, that is defendants 10 to 14, or such of them as may be liable, to pay over to the administrator to be appointed by Court the value of the mitta properties and to restore to the estate the benefits they had unlawfully obtained as a result of the fraudulent breach of trust on the part of the first defenda...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupathi and Others Vs. Income-tax Appellate T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1965
Reported in: [1965]58ITR514(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - In W. P. No. 307 of 1962, a writ of certiorari is prayed for to call for the records relating to the expenditure-tax assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1958-59 on the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, and to quash the order of the Tribunal. In W. P. No. 308 of 1962, a writ of prohibition is sought to prohibit the I Additional Expenditure-tax Officer from taking assessment proceedings under the Expenditure-tax Act in respect of the assessment year 19959-60. In Tax Case No. 263 of 1962, on the application of the assessee under section 25(1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, the following two question stand referred for the decision of this cour :'(1) Whether the inclusion of the income from agriculture, interim payments and race winnings for determination of the total income of the assessee for the purpose of Expenditure-tax Act is justified in la ?(2) Whether the inclusion of Rs. 26,650, being the customary a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Arthanari Transport (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. K.P. Swami Gounder and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad231; (1965)2MLJ504
Veeraswami, J.(1) Defendants 1 to 3 and 8 have appealed from the judgment of the District Munsif of Coimbatore for the plaintiffs declaring that they continued to be directors of Sri Arthanari Transports (P.) Ltd., the first defendant and restraining the defendants from preventing them from exercising their office of directorship and participating in the management of the company. The appeal was originally filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, but by an order of this court on the company side it stood transferred to this Court. Though the appeal was valued at Rs. 800 in the first instance, on an application by the appellants, the appeal has been placed before a Division Bench on a view that the value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 7,500 under Chapter I, Rule 1, Clause 3(d) of the Appellate Side Rules.(2) The main question in the appeal is whether the District Munsif was right in his view that the plaintiffs were subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Madras Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad194; 1966CriLJ668; (1965)2MLJ403
(1) This appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent, Arumugham by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, for an offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w Rules 44(c) and 46 of the Rules framed thereunder. The Food Inspector of the Corporation of Madras, P.W. 1 purchased from the respondent on 21-9-1962 a sample of ghee exhibited for sale which, when analysed by the Public Analyst, was found adulterated with 13% of foreign fat.(2) There is no dispute that after P.W. 1 purchase the sample of the ghee, he had conformed to the formalities in the matter of dividing the sample and sending 1/3rd thereof to the Public Analyst. The result of the analysis disclosed 87 per cent genuine ghee, 13 per cent foreign fat (not derived from milk or cream) and a Reichert value of 22.5 per cent, so that the Analyst certified that the sample was adulterated with 13 per cent extraneous fat and this opinion was based on item A.11.14 of Appendix B of the Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Maggajee Saremall and Brothers, Madras Vs. Joint Chief Controller ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad309; (1965)2MLJ313
ORDER(1) These three petitions challenge the order of the Import Control Authorities refusing the grant of licences to the petitioners in respect of certain licensing periods W.P 566 of 1962 relates to two periods-January to July 1956 and July to December 1956. The petitioner applied for import licence for 'Paper, other sorts'. These applications were kept pending till recognition of transfer of quota rights to the petitioner firm and the petitioner was directed to get the changes in the constitution of the petitioner partnership and the transfer of quota rights recognised. This was apparently approved by the Chief Controller of Imports in 1958 only, and by that order that authority stated that this recognition of the transfer of quota rights should be effective only for subsequent periods. This was followed by the rejection of the applications of the petitioner for the licensing periods mentioned above. This matter was brought before this court in W.P. 782 of 1959. That petition was a...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gopalaswami Vs. G. Navalgaria and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad403
(1) This is an appeal by the injured person in a motor accident against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing an application for excusing the delay in filing the main application for compensation under Section 110--A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant met with the accident on 15-9-1961. It is admitted that he sustained a compound fracture of the right leg. He was admitted in the hospital till 11-7-1962, when he was discharged due to want of accommodation in the hospital. It is stated that he continued to be in bed in the house of a friend of this till 15-10-1962, when he filed this application for excusing the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 110--A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act Section 110--A(3) of the Act provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident. The proviso to this section empowers the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application after the ex...
Tag this Judgment!A. Appathurai Nadar and anr. Vs. Government of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC305(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The first of these petitions is for a mandamus to the respondents directing them to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 26,200 alleged to have been illegally seized from their residence on a raid by the Sales Tax Officers on 11th September, 1964. The other is for prohibition restraining the respondent in that petition from proceeding with the enquiry for assessment for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64, as proposed in his summons dated 19th September, 1964. A. Appathurai Nadar, who is one of the petitioners in W. P. No. 1577 of 1964, is a registered dealer carrying on business in grocery articles and pulses at No. 137, Great Cotton Road, Tuticorin. He had been assessed for the years 1959-60 to 1963-64. On 11th September, 1964, according to the dealer, a group of six or seven officers of the Commercial Taxes Department, under the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madurai, made a surprise inspection of his place of business, godowns and residence. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »