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.
C.M.V. Krishnamachari Vs. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ298
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai, dismissing the application which the petitioner herein filed for impleading himself as a supplemental defendant in a partition suit, Original Suit No. 51 of 1963. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs in the said suit while the third respondent, M.K. Sundararama 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. Sundararama Iyer, had entered into a written agreement of sale, dated 6th September, 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 Rs. 9,000 had been paid by the petitioner to Sundararama Iyer aforesaid who had agreed to convey the property and execute the registered deed of sale within three months from the date of the a...
Chinnamarappa Goundar and ors. Vs. Narayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad169
Venkatadri, J.(1) This is an appeal preferred by the first plaintiff and the legal representatives of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that they are entitled to the suit properties of Pa. Palani Goundar was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode. According to the plaint, their case is that the suit properties were originally allotted to Pa. Palani Goundar at a partition effected between himself and his brother Mitta Perumal Goundar. Subsequently when Pa. Palani Goundar died in 1908, he left his two widows Kaliammal and Nanjammal, his brother Mitta Perumal, Kaliammal, their mother, and Chockkammal the widow of his deceased brother Kolanda Goundar. Soon after the death of Pa. Palani Goundar, an agreement was entered into with the then reversioner Mitta Goundar by the two widows of Pa. Palani Goundar in and by which substantial properties were allowed to be in possession of these widows for their maintenance. After the death of the widows Kaliammal...
S. Rajam. Vs. the Indian Union, Ministry of Rehabilitation, New Delhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad235
(1) The controversy in this appeal by the plaintiff is as to the rate of commission at which he is entitled to be paid for certain auction sales of evacuee properties in Madras, Bangalore, Mysore, Ootacamund and Coonoor, which the held in five batches between February 22, and June 26, 1955, on behalf of the defendant. He has been paid at one per cent of the sale proceeds in respect of the first batch of sales held between 22-2-1955 and 26-2-1955 at Madras. With regard to the other batches of sales between 7-4-1955 and 16-4-1955, 26-1-1955 and 1-5-1955, 9-5-1955 and 15-5-1955, and 26-6-1955 and 27-6-1955, the defendant paid the plaintiff only a sum of Rs. 7,324,56 against a claim of Rs. 23,098-35. The suit is to recover the difference, the main ground of the appellant being that there was no reason to make a distinction between the sales made prior to 1-4-1955 and those subsequent thereto, as the work involved in respect of both the sales was just the same, and there was no reason why ...
State of Madras and anr. Vs. R.A. Matha Gowder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad393
(1) These land acquisition appeals by the State raise the question of the method of valuation of lands under acquisition. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on different dates between 20-6-1956 and 18-12-1957. In all these appeals the lands were originally tea or coffee estates. It appears that even before those dates, the Superintending Engineer, Electricity, got into possession of the lands in order apparently to expedite the Kundah Project, on a promise to the owners to pay for the tea or coffee plants at rates to be determined by the Revenue department. On such entry, the tea or coffee plants on the lands were destroyed. The owners had since been, according to the appellant, paid compensation partly or fully for the coffee and tea plants at certain rates per plant. Later on, the Government took the view that the payments at those rates were excessive and that it would suffice if compensation was paid at a certain reduced rate per acre for the tea a...
U. Vridhachalam and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad260; (1966)IILLJ903Mad
ORDER(1) The petitioner, since deceased, was a police head constable against whom certain charges were framed. A departmental enquiry thereinto resulted in an order of dismissal from service. The petitioner, after exhausting his remedies by way of appeal, came to this court, seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari on certain grounds, which it is unnecessary to refer to. Since filing the petition, he died and his legal representatives have come on record.(2) The preliminary question arises whether the writ proceedings are maintainable in the circumstances of the case. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State, that any order that can be made in this case is of an interest personal only to the dismissed officer, and that since the legal representatives can claim no personal right, they cannot agitate the question. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Mohan urges that this being an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari, what is sought is only to have the of...
M.K. Sundararamier Vs. C.M.V. Krishnamachary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad330; (1965)2MLJ478
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises out of E.A. 361 of 1964 in E.P. 153 of 1963 in O.S. 30 of 1963, on the file of the Sub-court, Madurai. The suit O.S. 30 of 1963 was filed by the plaintiff Venkataraman against M. K. Sundararamier, his daughter-in-law and grandson for a certain sum of money. He exonerated the daughter-in-law and grandson and obtained a decree for Rs. 9000 against Sundararamier. To execute the decree, he filed E.P. 153 of 1963 and attached a house belonging to the joint family consisting of Sundararamier, his daughter-in-law and his grandson. The house is said to be worth about Rs. 29000. But in respect of that house. Sundararamier had executed an agreement Ex.A. 1 dated 6-9-1962 for Rs. 29000 in favour of one C.M.V. Krishnamachary. Under the agreement a sum of Rs. 9000 was advanced. But the sale was not completed. It is the case of C.M.V. Krihanamachary that the default was with M. K. Sundararamier. He has issued a notice Ex.A. 2 dated 21-2-1963 to M. K. Sundararam...
M. Bhoopathy (Died) and ors. Vs. M.S. Vijayalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad244; (1965)2MLJ466
Veeraswami, J. (1) The appeal and the Memorandum of Cross objections raise a question of importance as to accident liability to third party under motor insurance and come before us on a reference by Ramakrishnan, J. The precise point for our decision is whether the insurer of a motor car is not liable to a third party on a comprehensive policy of insurance on account of an accident to him by the negligence of the assured's driver, because the accident took place after the assured, the owner of the car, had sold it to another and before the purchaser got an extension of the cover to him or obtained a fresh policy. The Court below allowed as it was bound to, Madras Motor Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohammed Mustafa Badsha, : AIR1961Mad208 and held against the insurer. Ananthanarayanan, J. was there of the view that a policy of insurance did not lapse the moment the insured parted with the ownership of the insured vehicle and that notwithstanding such transfer and ownership, the insurer, having...
K.S. Shivji and Co. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad135; [1965]16STC769(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) This is a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of assessment dated 15-12-1964, made on the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner had reported a turnover of Rs. 7,09,985-28. The assessing officer, however, determined the taxable turnover to be Rs. 15,42,415-33. This was preceded by a notice dated 8-12-1964, asking the petitioner to show cause why the total turnover should not be determined at that figure. The difference between the turnover reported and the turnover determined related to omissions, according to the assessing officer, in the stock books recovered on an inspection by the intelligence Staff of the sales tax department. The omissions were worked out to Rs 2,94,737,83. The assessee had arrived at the stock valuation of Rs. 2,79,058-43. With reference to these figures, working on a proportionate basis, the assessing authority fixed Rs 8,32,000 as the suppressed turnover.(2) It is not in dispute that the...
L. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: [1969]72ITR114(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. This reference under Section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act arises out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1955-56 (accounting year ended March 31, 1955).2. The assessee, L. VE. Vairavan Chettiar, was originally a partner in one M. VE. Firm which was carrying on business at Madurai, one in rice mill and the other in arecanuts. The said firm was dissolved on April 12, 1949. Thereafter, the assessee became the sole proprietor of the two businesses. For the sake of convenience, the assessee maintained separate sets of accounts for the two businesses connected through a current account but these two lines of the assessee's trading activities were inter-related and inter-connected with unity of control and common funds. In respect of the assessment year, the assessee claimed a net loss of Rs. 14,059 from his trade in arecanuts, which he had temporarily suspended in the year of account on account of unfavourable market conditions due to increase of import duty on arecanu...
Mysore Fertiliser Co., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1965
Reported in: [1966]59ITR268(Mad)
VENKATADRI J. - This is a reference directed to be made on the application of the assessee under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, for the opinion of this court on the question which has been formulated as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 50,000 to the income disclosed by the assessee ?'The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of manure mixtures and also purchase and sale of fertilisers. For the assessment year 1953-54 (accounting year ending with March 31, 1953), the total turnover of the business was Rs. 38,01,430, out of which straight fertilisers sales were Rs. 12,26,580 and the sales of mixed fertilisers were Rs. 25,74,850. The net turnover was Rs. 35,99,621 and the gross profit was 13.6%. During the course of inspection of the account books, the Income-tax Officer found various defects in the stock register, etc., and he considered that 13.6%, the gross profit arrived at by the assessee, was lo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »