Chennai Court January 1967 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.
Syed Mustafa Peeran Sahib and anr. Vs. State Wakf Board Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad66; (1968)1MLJ19
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. In these two petitions the prayer is for the issue of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the respondent, Secretary of the State Wakf Board, Madras, to forbear (?) from taking any action under the Muslim Wakf Act (Central Act 29 of 1954) in regard to the levy of contribution under the aforesaid Act for the properties mentioned in the schedule to the petitions.2. The petitioners contend that in Naduhalli village, Dharmapuri Taluk, Salem, District there is a certain extent of land which has been entered in the village accounts as Kairathi personal inam. This property had been enjoyed by the petitioners and their predecessors-in-title for over 100 years as their personal property. The properties are not attached to any mosque or religious or charitable muslim institution, nor was there at any time a dedication in respect of them permanently or otherwise by any person. Nevertheless, the respondent Secretary of the Wakf Board, called ...
A.E. Thirumal Naidu Vs. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad201
1. The question that arises in this case does not so far appear to have come up for decision before any Court. The question is whether an agreement between a husband and wife to live separately can be urged in answer to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by one of the parties. In this case the wife instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband and in answer the husband put forward an agreement between them to live separate. This plea was found against by both the Courts below and the second appeal is against the judgment of the appellate Court.2. Under the English law it is well established that a pre-nuptial agreement to live separate would not be valid. Even a post-nuptial agreement would not be valid, if it is one to live separately in future. But a present agreement to live separately would be valid. See Chitty on Contracts, 22nd Edition paragraph 1200, where it is stated as follows:Separation agreements between husband and wife were at one time re...
In Re: K.T. Kosalram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ329
Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947, read with Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order 1955, and under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with the above sections. The first accused has been sentenced under Section 120-B to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 read with Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the sentences to run concurrently.2. Accused 2, 3 and 5 have been sentenced to pay each a fine of Rs. 1000 under Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947 read with Clause 5 of the Imports (Control) Order 1955 under each of the two counts and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months un...
A.V. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Hassina Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ139
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff, the mortgagee in a suit for sale who has failed in both the Courts below, has preferred this second appeal. Defendants 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the mortgagor one Abdul Rahim Sahib, the first defendant being the wife and defendants 2 to 4 being the children of the mortgagor. The 5th defendant has taken a deed of sale of the mortgaged properties from defendants 1 to 4 on 25th June, 1955. The claim for sale relates to two mortgages, both possessory in character, namely (1) Exhibit A-1 dated 2nd July, 1940, under which the mortgagor had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,000 and (2) Exhibit A-2 dated 21st December, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 1,000. Under the terms of the deeds the amounts do not carry any interest and the mortgagee in lieu of interest was to hold and enjoy the properties.2. The short question for consideration is whether on the terms of the documents a suit for sale for recovery of the mortgage moneys is maintainable. The plaintiff came...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ312
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the State of Madras and arises out of a final decree in a suit for rendition of accounts filed by the respondent Devasthanam. The respondent is stated to be a religious institution entitled to 14 and 3/8th share out of 36 shares in the village of Vadakuchardanoor which has been taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act on 16th March 1953. The Rent Reduction Act, Madras Act XXX of 1947, had been applied to the village by a notification on 24th February, 1950. On the averment that since the notification of the village under the Rent Reduction Act the State which had been collecting Melwaram from the ryots had not paid over to the plaintiff Dev asthanam the amounts payable in terms of Madras Act XXX of 1947 for Faslis 1359 and 1360, the suit came to be filedfor rendition of accounts of Melwaram collections. A preliminary decree was passed in the case on 13th February, 1960. No doubt a ground has been taken b...
A. K. Bashu Sahib Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Vellore.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR20(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This petition for prohibition turns on a very short point as to whether an estimate of income and tax made and sent on a due date for payment of advance tax installment will entitle the assessee to pay the same in accordance with that estimate and not as per demand of advance tax. The last completed assessment on the assessee was for the assessment year 1959-60. The tax assessed for that year was Rs. 1,37,349.26. On August 13, 1962 by a notice of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee was asked to pay the advance tax for the accounting year 1962-63 on the basis of the earlier assessment. On August 30, 1962, his auditor made an estimate of the income and probable tax payable for that year. But this was not in the form prescribed under section 212(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was only the next day the assessee sent an estimate in the prescribed form but that reached the Income-tax Officer on September 5, 1962, as the interval, as it is stated, happened to be holidays....
A.E. Thirumal Naidu Vs. Rajammal Alias Rajalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ484
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The question that arises in this case does not so far appear to have come up for decision before any Court. The question is whether an agreement between a husband and wife to live separately can be urged in answer to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by one of the parties. In this case the wife instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband and in answer the husband put forward an agreement between them to live separate. This plea was found against by both the Courts below and the second appeal is against the judgment of the appellate Court.2. Under the English law it is well established that a pre-nuptial agreement to live separate would not be valid. Even a post-nuptial agreement would not be valid, if it is one to live separately in future. But a present agreement to live separately would be valid. See Chitty on Contracts, 22nd Edition paragraph 1200, where it is stated as follows:Separation agreements between husband and wife ...
N. C. R. Rajagopala Chettiar Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR210(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - For the assessment year 1958-59 for which the accounting year ended on October 21, 1957, the petitioner was, in the status of an individual, assessed on a total income of Rs. 44,367. Part of this income related to the assessees minor son from two partnership firms in each of which he was a member. This was included in the petitioners income and brought to tax under section 16 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. On this portion of the income an additional surcharge at 15 per cent. was levied, treating the same as unearned income under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1958. It is common ground now that this levy could not be supported in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Marimuthu Nadar. The view which found favour in this decision was also the view held earlier by this court in S. A. S. Marimuthu Nadar v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The result was that the minors share of income was only liable to surcharge at the rate of 5 per cent.On January 10, 1962...
Natarajan (M.) Vs. Madras State Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ124Mad
Kailasam, J.1. This petition Is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Madras State Electricity Board represented by the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, and to quash his order made in Memorandum No. ADM. 1/04/1734/66, dated 8 July 1966, reverting the petitioner as cleaner, II grade, from the post of lorry-driver, II grade.2. The petitioner joined the Electricity Department of the Government of Madras In September 1949, as mechanic. When the State Electricity Board took over the electric supply, the petitioner's services were transferred to the board. At that time he was a lineman-driver. In 1964 certain charges were framed against the petitioner. On 10 April 1964, a memorandum was given to the petitioner charging him that he failed to deliver a letter which was intended for a superior officer. The petitioner was also charged that he failed to follow instructions before taking a vehicle from Mettur Dam to Salem. The petitioner offe...
A.S. Kuppuswami Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ79
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli, holding that the two references A.R.C. Nos. 198 and 199 of 1962-63 fall within the ambit of Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, (VI of 1932).2. The petitioner was the President of the Palamcottah-Tirunelveli Co-operative Stores, Ltd., in 1959-60. On 1st September, 1960 the petitioner found on receipt of the profit and loss account that there was a stock deficit of Rs. 8,000 and a gross loss of Rs. 6,957. The usual annual profit of Rs. 8,700 was not found. The petitioner became suspicious about the conduct of the business of the society and asked the Secretary for particulars regarding the working of the society. On 12th September, 1960 the petitioner placed the matter before the Board of Directors. On 19th September, 1960 he reported the matter to the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. On 21st September, 1960 the Deputy R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›