Chennai Court March 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.
Manicka Gounder Vs. Muniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad392; (1968)2MLJ74
(1) This civil revision petition involves a question of law of considerable interest. The facts would appear to be very clearly established and to admit of little or no doubt.(2) As is well known, S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872) declares that--'The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or.............. the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.'The section then proceeds to state that in each of the given categories 'the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful'. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.'(3) Very briefly stated, the revision petitioner is the defendant in a suit by a certain Muniammal, the plaintiff, to recover a sum of Rs. 810 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of the Courts below, as they stand at present, are that, though there was no cash consideratio...
Arunachalam Pillai Vs. M. Velamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad226
1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property, has preferred this second appeal, the Courts below having concurred in dismissing his suit as barred by limitation and barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.2. The material facts now beyond controversy may be briefly set out. Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, mortgaged with possession the property described as item one of the plaint schedule under Exhibit A-2 dated 23-8-1120 (M.E.) for 3000 fanams. The second item of the plaint schedule was given as additional security for the mortgage amount. On the same date, the mortgaged property was taken back on lease, at the rate of Rs. 3.30 per mensem and the mortgagors defendants 2 to 4 continued in possession of the property. On the failure of the defendants to pay rents accrued, the plaintiff filed in a suit O.S. No. 720 of 1121 on the file of the Additional District Court, Nagercoil, for the arrears of rent accrued till then and obtained a...
K.M. Jamal Mydeen Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC45(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The petitioner Jamal Mydeen is a lessee of coconut topes and he has filed this batch of writ petitions to quash the orders of assessment made for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam, on 31st October, 1964, on the ground that he is not liable to pay sales tax on the sale of coconuts to Messrs Khader Batcha Sons, Ayyampettai.2. The petitioner is, as already stated, a lessee of coconut topes from several persons in Thanjavur District. He contends before me that he is not liable to pay sales tax, because under Section 2(r) of the General Sales Tax Act, he is exempted from liability to sales tax, as the usufruct of the coconut trees is agricultural or horticultural produce. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Narayana v. Subramanian I.L.R. 1937 Mad. 364 where it was held that coconuts are fruits, coconut trees are fruit...
Arunachalam Pillai Vs. M. Velamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ490
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of mortgage money by sale of the mortgaged property, has preferred this second appeal, the Courts below having concurred in dismissing his suit as barred by limitation and barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.2. The material facts now beyond controversy may be briefly set out. Defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, mortgaged with possession the property described as item one of the plaint schedule under Exhibit A-2 dated 23-8-1120 (M.E.) for 3000 fanams. The second item of the plaint schedule was given as additional security for the mortgage amount. On the same date, the mortgaged property was taken back on lease, at the rate of Rs. 3.30 per mensem and the mortgagors defendants 2 to 4 continued in possession of the property. On the failure of the defendants to pay rents accrued, the plaintiff filed in a suit O.S. No. 720 of 1121 on the file of the Additional District Court, Nagercoil, for the arrears of rent accrued till then ...
Kanakaraj Vs. B.V. Sundaraja Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad394
Ramamuri, J.(1) The main point that arises for decision in the present appeal preferred by the defendant relates to limitation, as t the period for which the respondents (plaintiffs) are entitled to recover the income of the properties which were subject to a possessory mortgage. The plaintiffs in the suit are the successors-in-interest of the mortgagor, while the sole defendant is the successor-in-interest of the mortgagee. The possessory mortgage in question was executed in April 1924 and by January 1938 the defendant became the ultimate assignee of the mortgage. The plaintiffs filed O. P. 48 of 1950 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul under Secs. 9-A and 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act for a declaration of the amount due under the possessory mortgage, after invoking the benefit of scaling down and on 16-1-1951 the amount payable to the mortgagee was determined in the sum of Rs. 917. This amount was deposited into Court in O. P. 48 of 1950 and notice was also ser...
Kanakaraj Vs. B.V. Sundararaja Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ456
Ramamurti, J.1. The main point that arises for decision in the present appeal preferred by the defendant relates to limitation, as to the period for which the respondents (the plaintiffs) are entitled to recover the income of the properties which were subject to a possessory mortgage. The plaintiffs in the suit are the successors-in-interest of the mortgagor, while the sole defendant is the successor-in-interest of the mortgagee. The possessory mortgage in question was executed in April, 1924 and by January, 1938, the defendant became the ultimate assignee of the mortgage. The plaintiffs filed Original Petition No. 48 of 1950, on the file of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, under Sections 9-A and 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists Debt Relief Act for a declaration of the amount due under the possessory mortgage, after invoking the benefit of sealing down, and on 16th January, 1951, the amount payable to the mortgagee was determined in the sum of Rs. 917. This amount was deposited into Court in ...
B.R. Venkatachalapathy Vs. N. Manickam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ398
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 233 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner, who filed the nomination to the Bhavani Panchayat from Ward No. 8 against the order of the Election Court in O.P. No. 9 of 1965 setting aside the election to the Ward and ordering fresh election. Writ Petition No. 234 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner who filed the nomination for election to the Bhavani Town Panchayat from Ward No. 10 against the order of the Election Court in O.P. No. 11 of 1965 setting aside his election and ordering fresh election to the Ward. C.R.P. No. 323 of 1966 is filed by the petitioner who filed the nomination for Ward No. 9 against the order of the Election Court, Erode, in O.P. No. 10 of 1965 setting aside his election and directing fresh election.2. The two writ petitions and the civil revision petition raise the same question and can be dealt with together. The petitioners in the writ petitions and the Civil Revision Petitioner filed nominations for Ward Nos. 8,10 and 9 re...
C. Arumugham Vs. R. Sivaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ257
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in O.P. No. 11 of 1965 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Election Commissioner), Nagercoil and to quash his order dated 28th February, 1966 setting aside the election and ordering fresh election.2. The petitioner and the first respondent contested for Marungur Town Panchayat. The petitioner obtained 363 votes and the first respondent 139 votes. So, the petitioner was declared elected. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 11 of 1965 challenging the validity of the election. The election was challenged on several grounds but the Election Commissioner held that the election was invalid and set aside the election on the ground that the petitioner appointed one Mathavan Pillai and seven others as water-supply attenders in the Panchayat a day before the election and that amounted to a corrupt practice. He also found that though only 480 ballot papers were issued, 30 ballot pape...
Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1967
Reported in: [1967]66ITR270(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of the Income-tax Officer dated November 21, 1958, made under section 18(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. By that order he directed the petitioner to pay on or before December 30, 1958, a sum of Rs. 37,408 88 as tax which it should have deducted but failed to do so on a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 paid to one A. Subbiah on April 16, 1945, in accordance with the agreement dated April 11, 1945. The Income-tax Officer himself in his order described the circumstances in which this payment came to be made to Subbiah. It appears that he was formerly in the employ of the Imperial Bank of India and, under the terms of his services there, he would be entitled on his retirement to pensioner benefits. The petitioner, which is the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Madras, requistioned his services as its general manager but his acceptance of service under the petitioner would involve sacrifice of the benefits which he would...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›