Chennai Court October 1968 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.
Srinivasa Padayachi Vs. Parvathiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad113
Natesan, J.1. In this second appeal by the chief contesting first defendant who has failed in both the courts below, the short question for consideration is whether the settlement deed Ex. A.I, executed in favour of the plaintiff by her husband just before the marriage, is wholly void, or valid as against his share in the properties covered by the deed. The courts below have upheld the plaintiffs claim of a half share in the properties, declared her right to the same, and decreed delivery thereof with mesne profits. The suit properties, an extent of one acre and 80 cents in R. S. 18/2 and a house in Vadakrishnapuram village, Chidambaram taluk, stood in the name of the plaintiffs husband Muthulinga Padayachi. His brother is one Palanivelu Padayachi, father of defendants 5 to 8 in the suit who have not contested the plaintiff's claim. The finding of the courts below is that, on the plaintiff's parents insisting upon a settlement of property being made in her favour as a consideration for...
Meenakshinada Deikshtar Vs. Murugesa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad391
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. Under Exhibit A-2 dated 27th April. 1963, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the land belonging to the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant who was the accredited power-of-attorney holder of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 225 as advance towards the total price of Rs. 1,537, which advance, in terms of the agreement, was liable to be forfeited in case the sale was not completed within the prescribed time and due to the plaintiff's default. The term of the contract ran as under;'If you (the plaintiff) fail to complete the sale within the aforesaid time, you (the plaintiff) shall lose the said advance. If I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) fail to get the said sale deed registered within the aforesaid time, I (the 1st defendant through the 2nd defendant) will give you (the plaintiff) two times above the said advance.' In short, for a breach of the contract on the part of either the plaintif...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. Vs. Vittaldas Jagann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ118
R. Sadasivam, J.1. This Writ Appeal is against the order of Anantanarayanan, J., as he then was, in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 1962 filed by Jagannathadas and Co., hereinafter referred to as the Company, granting a writ of mandamus, restraining the appellants herein from collecting the employees' provident fund contributions in pusuance of the letter, dated 28th June, 1962 of the first appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner. The facts of this case are clearly stated in the order under appeal and they are not in dispute. One Jagannathadas Govindas, Vallabhadas Baldevadat and Khusaldas-Govindas who constituted members of a Hindu joint family;, owned the theatre known as Maharani Talkies, constituting the land and buildings situated on the Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, bearing Door No. 149, the talkie equipment, machinery, other fittings and the furniture. One S. Raja Chetty and C.V. Narasimhalu Chetty were the original lessees o...
Pl. S. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1970]76ITR402(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. One PL. S. RM. Sivaswamy Chettiar died onNovember 30, 1963, leaving two sons, two daughters and his widow. TheAssistant Controller of Estate Duty, Coimbatore, made a provisional orderunder section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and called upon thepetitioner, who is one of the sons of the deceased, to pay the tax. Thispetition is to quash the order.2. It is urged in support of the petition that the respondent was wrong inapplying Section 34(1)(c) to the facts of the case. Reference is made to theproviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Explanation 1to that section and it is said that, in view of those provisions, there will beno question of devolution by survivorship, but only by succession in thiscase. That is a question which is entirely within the competence of therespondent to decide. The petitioner has still an opportunity to urge thispoint before him, since, as we said, the order the respondent has made isonly a provisional order. In our view,...
A.K. Gopala Pillai Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1970]75ITR120(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions for certiorari are directed against orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Palayamcottai, made under Section 35 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, as amended, and relate, to the assessment years 1959-60, 1992-63 and 1963-64. In O. S. No. 19 of 1950, on the file of the court of the subordinate judge at Tirunelveli, the petitioner was appointed as a receiver for the estate of late M. D. T. Ranganatha Mudaliar. A preliminary decree appears to havebeen passed in the suit declaring that the adopted son and widow of the deceased were entitled to the estate in equal moieties. For 1959-60, the net agricultural income from the estate was fixed at Rs. 25,990 and apportioning the same equally as between the deceased's son and widow in accordance with the terms of the preliminary decree passed on July 29, 1960, the net income of each was determined at Rs. 12,995 and the tax applicable to the amount was levied. It may be seen that, though the r...
South Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. First Income-tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR383(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The petitions relate to orders made in common for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60. They were made under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to rectify the earlier orders. For instance, in respect of the assessment for the year 1958-59, as a result of rectificationa sum of Rs. 30,347 was added to the taxable total income. In respect of the other two years too, additions were made. It appears that the assessee had earlier succeeded in the Supreme Court on the basis of Hoshiarpur Electric Supply Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, : [1961]41ITR608(SC) which held that collections made by the assessee by way of reimbursements of capital expenditure incurred by it on behalf of different consumers in laying mains and providing service connections, etc., were essentially of a capital character and that even the excess of the collections over the actual capital expenditure would partake of that charcter. In view of the decision, therefore, the First Income-ta...
Pandyan Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR12(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. We are of opinion that the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, is correct, though his reasoning is not acceptable. The petitioner is a public limited company doing business in general insurance. In respect of the assessment year 1954-55, the claim for depreciation written off of buildings, air conditioning plants, lifts, etc., was allowed only to the extent of 1/5th. The result of the assessee's appeal was that the entirety of the depreciation was disallowed and the charge was enhanced. The Tribunal restored the first order with which this court on a reference had concurred. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 816 of 1963, Pandyan Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1965]55ITR716(SC) . however, held that the petitioner was entitled to the allowance of the entire amount of depreciation which had been written off in its accounts in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. On December 16, 1964, the Tribunal passed a consequent...
Angappa Goundan Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ170
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The short point that arises in this revision proceeding is whether a Hindu widow, claiming to be the sole heir to the assets of her husband, who died intestate, under Section 8 of the Succession Act, 1956 (XXX of 1956), is bound to produce a succession certificate under Section 214 (1) (a) of the Succession Act, when she brings forward a suit in a Court for a decree against the debtor of the deceased husband.2. It is not necessary to refer to the matter in any great detail, for the point seems to be obvious, whether Section 214 (1) (a) or Section 214 (1) (b) is the relevant provision of law, that perhaps, by oversight, there has been no legislative amendment of Section 214 making an exception in the case of a claim under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (Central Act XXX of 1955). The matter is not bare of authority. It came up, squarely in the form that it now arises, except for the distinction that that was a case of an execution of a decree already obt...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Pitchaiah Moopanar Alias Pitchaiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad198; 1970CriLJ705
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Madurai, in C. A. No, 103 of 1985 by his judgment dated 18-2-1966, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, in C. C. No. 1 of 1964 under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 and 290, I, P. G.2. The prosecution case is briefly this: The respondent Pitchiah Moopanar was the Manager and correspondent of the Saraswathi Higher Elementary School, Maninaga-ram Second Street, Madurai. At about 12 noon on 4-4-1964, a portion of the building collapsed while classes were being held in the school resulting in the death of 35 girl students and a middle aged woman. Further, 16 students sustained grievous injuries and 142 students sustained simple injuries. A cow and two calves died, and one cow was injured. The Collector of Madurai directed P. W. 215 Sri. Jayapalan, Executive Engineer, to inspe...
Ammapet Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ152Mad
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. All these writ petitions raise the same question, and they can be dealt with together. Respondents 1 in the five writ petitions are employed under the petitioner, the Ammapet Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society, Ltd. Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 1978 of 1967, K.S. Kadalaimuthu, was transferred from Ammapet to Erode on 28 January 1965, directing: him to join at Erode on 1 February 1965. Respondent 1 asked for an advance of Rs. 200 and ten days' time to join. This was refused. The employee, respondent 1, did not turn up, and the society on 16 March 1965, passed an order stating that the employee had not reported at the depot to which he was transferred, though he was required to join on 1 February 1965 and that he had not made any application for leave for not joining duty and hence he was removed from the list of employees. Respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 2510 of 1967, P.S. Guruswami, was transferred from Ammapet to T. Nagar on 28 Janua...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »