Chennai Court March 1966 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.
Dhanakoti Achari and ors. Vs. Veeraswami Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad91; 1967CriLJ213
(1) This revision potation has been filed by the B party in M.C. 152 of 1965, on the file of the District Magistrate (J.), Chingleput. The A party filed that petition M.C. 152 of 1965 under S. 145, Cri.P.C. before the learned Magistrate claiming to be in possession of the properties mentioned in the potion. They admitted that the B party was in possession of some portions of the properties, but alleged that the B party was in such possession only as tenants of the A parry. The B party however claimed to be in possession in their own right and further they claimed to be in possession of a much larger extent than was admitted by the A party. The learned District Magistrate found that the evidence produced by the parties was vague and inadequate and that it was not possible for him to come to a definite conclusion and, there fore, under S. 146(1 Cri P.C., he draw up a statement of the case and forwarded the record to the civil Court of competent jurisdiction which he named as the Distric...
A. Kuppiah Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1966
Reported in: [1967]63ITR522(Mad)
NATENSAN J. - This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the question referred runs thus :'Whether there were materials on record to justify the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was no effective partition of July 24, 1954, with reference to any of all the assets mentioned in the Tribunals orde ?'The assessee is Kuppiah Mudaliar as the karta of an undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his son, Balasubramanian. He seeks to exclude the income from certain sources as not income of the undivided Hindu family, setting up a completed partition of the related items on July 26, 1954, pursuant to an agreement for partition entered into on June 14, 1954. The assessment orders involved in the references are for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58. An order under section 25A(1) has been refused, but that does not preclude the assessee from contending that there has been partial partition in respect of particular movable items. The sources ...
Nagammal Vs. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ96
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. In my view, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (J) of Sankari,. was perfectly justified in dropping further proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, and, in dismissing the petition. The facts are that the Revision Petitioner Nagammal (Party A) had moved the Executives Magistrate of requisite jurisdiction, for promulgating an order under Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code, in respect of a small piece of land upon which some structures had been put up. Party B opposed the claim of the Revision Petitioner to possession of this, land, and, ordinarily speaking, the Executive First Class Magistrate of Sankari would probably have been in order in taking cognizance, and in promulgating a notification under Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. Even so, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (J.) of Sankari, to whom the proceedings were subsequently transferred for disposal, had every jurisdiction to drop the proceedings, under Section 14...
In Re: A.M. Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ97
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. Upon the evidence, it appears to me that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was perfectly justified in convicting the revision petitioner (A.M. Hussain) under Section 3(5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, read with Section 33.2. The facts, as they appear in the record, do not seem to be capable of being controverted at all. They are so clear and definite. It has to be conceded that this landlord (revision petitioner) duly notified the vacancy of this residential house, and an Inspector has inspected the house on 28th March, 1964, and made a report ' about the state of the building and the fixtures. The new tenant, to whom the premises had been allotted by the Accommodation Controller, paid the advance, and made an inspection of the building as a preliminary measure, before entering into occupation. He went to the house on 5th April, 1964, established contact with the landlord (revision petitioner) and gave Rs. 100 as adv...
K.N. Pethaperumal Maistry Vs. G. Perumal Maistry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ141
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. It is sufficient to deal with this revision proceeding within a restricted compass. The first ground on which the revision proceeding is pressed, viz., that the application in the Revenue Court for the eviction of the cultivating tenant (revision petitioner) was first heard by one officer, then by his successor, again subsequently by the first officer, so that there has been a change in the personnel of the officer presiding over the Revenue Court, which disentitles either officer to make a final order, is without substance. The argument may conceivably have some force, if the Madrs Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act (1955) and the Rules framed thereunder in 1955, were wholly without a provision for a contingency of this character. On the contrary, Rule 8(i) of the Rules framed under the Act by G.O. No. 66c,, Revenue, dated 13th February, 1956, specifically declared that:Every Court constituted under the Act shall have the powers exercisable by a civi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›