Chennai Court April 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.
S. Sama (Died) and ors. Vs. Presidency Talkies (Pte.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad184
Ramamurti, J.(1) This appeal arises out of execution proceedings in a suit, C.S. 262 of 1945, filed by one S. Sama, the first appellant, now represented by his legal representatives, appellants 2 to 5. This Sama produced a picture 'Rajasuyam' in 1941-42 and in connection therewith he entered into a financing agreement for securing a loan of Rs. 51,000 under which the distribution and the negative rights of the picture were pledged and the respondents herein are the pledgees. The picture was released in 1942, and was run till September 1945. The picture proved to be disappointment and a great failure. It has been fully exploited by September 1945, and its earning capacity was nil at that stage. The first appellant thereupon filed C.S. 262 of 1945, for redemption of the pledge and also for taking the accounts of the exploitation of the picture by the pledgees. As a result of the account taking it was found that the moneys advanced by the financier (the pledgee) had been completely repaid...
B. Govindarajulu Chetty Vs. M.L.A. Govindaraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad332
(1) This appeal arises out of a claim made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant's son, aged about 24 years, while going on a cycle from Elephant Gate to the Central Station met with an accident and was killed as a result of a lorry coming behind and hitting him and throwing him off the ground. This took place in the Walltax Road on 22-1-1962 at about 6-15 p.m. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry, the second respondent is the insurance company; the third respondent is the owner of a work-shop and a lorry repairer to whom the lorry has been entrusted for repairs by the first respondent at the time of the accident, while the 4th respondent is the person who drove the lorry which was involved in the accident.(2) Respondents 1 and 2 contested the claim and respondents 3 and 4 remained ex parte. The Accidents Claims Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligent way in which the lorry was dr...
Karuppudayar and anr. Vs. Periathambi Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad165
(1) The scope of this second appeal lies within a limited compass. The prior facts are briefly the following. One Sellammal enjoyed the suit properties after the death of her husband Arumuga Odayar sometime in 1934 or 1935. During her lifetime, she executed a document, Ex. B-1, styled as a settlement deed, on 25-11-1945, in favour of Muthuswami Odayar, her husband's brother's son. The effect of this document has to be considered in this second appeal, and I shall do so a little later in the judgment. On the death of Sellammal issueless, in December 1958, the plaintiffs who are the sons of another brother of her husband filed a suit for partition impleading besides the aforesaid Muthuswami Udayar as the second defendant, his brother Karrupudayar as the first defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are alienees.The case of the plaintiffs was that the settlement deed was not valid beyond the lifetime of Sellammal, and that it was so held by the District Munsif in a prior decision, O.S. 147 of 1947,...
M. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad317; [1965]16STC684(Mad)
ORDER(1) This batch of petitions raises the question whether cinder is included within the meaning of 'coal, including coke in all its forms' which is item 1 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959. If it is a sale of coal or coke it will bear tax at the point of first sale in the State as provided by Section 4 of the Act. I must say that I have not found it quite easy to find a solution for the question, but, have eventually come to the conclusion that the expression does not include cinder. I shall presently give my reasons.(2) It will suffice to mention the facts in one of these batches as the point for decision in all of them is the same. In W. P. 1280 of 1965, the petitioner is a dealer in cinder ash at Madras. On his returns for January, February and March 1964, disclosing the turnover for each month in cinder, he claimed exemption on the ground that he was not a first dealer. The second respondent did not accept that view but proceeded to provisionally as...
R.M. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Sons and ors Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1965
Reported in: [1965]16STC671(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are dealers in groundnut oil. They sold groundnut oil to Hindustan Lever Limited, which in its turn utilised the oil for the manufacture of vanaspati. The exact quantum of the turnover of such sales is not of importance, for only a question of interpretation of a provision of the Sales Tax Act is called for and that question arises in the following manner : Under Section 3 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, every dealer whose total turnover for a year is not less than Rs. 10,000, shall pay a tax for each year at the rate of 2 per cent. on his taxable turnover. It would be sufficient to state the general liability of the dealer in such broad terms. The First Schedule lists out a number of goods, and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 states that in the case of goods mentioned in the First Schedule, the tax shall be payable at the rate and only at the point specified therein on the turnover relating to such goods, whatever may be the quan...
In Re: John and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ551
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The learned Second Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras convicted and sentenced three persons as follows:2. Accused 1 to 3 were convicted under Section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 for the offence of keeping a brothel at a premises in C. p. Ram swami Iyer Road, Millipore, Madras. Each of them was sentenced to R. I. for one year. Accused 3 was further charged under Section 3(2) (a) of the Act, for having allowed accused 1 and 2 to use the upstairs portion of the said premises as a brothel, convicted and sentenced to R. I. for one year, to run concurrently with the sentence on the first charge. They have appealed against the convictions and sentences.3. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly the following. Accused 2, Sayeeda, is the wife of accused 3. Accused 1 is their servant. P. W. 1 who is a broker in the sale and purchase of sheep and goats, was stopped near the Wellington Talkies at about 9-30 a.m. on the day of occ...
In Re: Rethinaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ276
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appeals have been instituted by the first accused (Aziz), the second accused (Antoine), the third accused (Bacha), the fifth accused (Rettinasamy) and the tenth accused (Sadasivame), from the convictions and sentences of the Tribunal Criminal, Karikal, dated 21st December, 1963. The appeals have been preferred as Pourvoi en Cassation to us, and also under Section 10 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, XLIX of 1962. The matter involves a careful scrutiny of the following inter-related aspects. Firstly, the procedure followed in the French Courts, particularly as the trial at the Criminal Session was by jury. Secondly, the relevant provisions of the French Code Penal, under which the convictions have been imposed. Thirdly, the established facts of the record of evidence. Finally, the principles of law upon which we could interfere in a case of this character, in the context of the facts established against each appellant individually and the degree to wh...
V.R. Varadarajulu Chettiar Vs. Muthukannu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad158; (1965)2MLJ536
1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the courts below in the suit filed by him for a declaration that a strip of land should be kept vacant as a common lane for repairs and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction for the removal of a staircase which had been built thereon and of a trough, some iron hooks, etc, is the appellant in this second appeal. There was also a prayer for a declaration of the plaintiff's ownership of a wall shown as A B C in the plaint plan. So far as the ownership of the wall is concerned, there was no serious contest about it and the courts below have upheld the plaintiff's claim in respect of the wall. This second appeal relates only to the other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff with reference to rights over the site A B C, C1, B1, A1 in the plaint plan.(2) A perusal of the judgment of the courts below shows that the plaintiff has put forward a case for reliefs to a larger extent than the easements rights he may be legally entitled to and appears to h...
C.M.V. Krishnamachari Vs. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1968Mad142
1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the application which the petitioner herein filed for impleading himself as a supplemental defendant in a partition suit, O. S. 51 of 1963. Respondents 1 and 2 here are plaintiffs in the said suit while the third respondent M. K. Subramania Iyer, is the first defendant against whom partition was claimed. The petitioner's case in support of his application was that the first defendant M.K. Subramania Iyer, had enteded into a written agreement of sale dated 6-9-1962 with the petitioner, agreeing to convey a house in Madurai town (one of the items involved in the suit for partition) for a sum of Rs. 29,000 and in pursuance of the agreement a sum of Rupees 9,000 had been paid by the petitioner to Sundararama Aiyer aforesaid who had agreed to convey the property and execute the registered deed of sale within three months from the date of the agreement of sale. The petitioner's case was that ...
T.K. Ramanujam Pillai Vs. Alagiamannar Rajagopalaswami Deity Palayam K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad298; (1965)2MLJ543
(1) This second appeal has been preferred by the second defendant in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 980 against the defendants, by the first respondent as the general trustee of a temple. The basis of the suit it a joint memo which the second defendant and the first defendant by his mother as guardian, the defendants acting through their counsel filed, the other party to the memorandum being the general trustee of the temple the memo being filed on an application under S. 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. Under the compromise memorandum, the defendants had covenanted to put 70 cents of the Nandavanam poromboke land, which they were alleged to have unlawfully converted into wet land, to the best use and pay whatever income was realised therefrom to the general trustee of the temple with the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The allegation in the plain is that the covenanted in spite of sanction having been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »