Chennai Court February 1968 Judgments
Ramachandra Naidu and anr. Vs. Ramayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad418; (1969)2MLJ151
Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, who has succeeded in both the Courts below. The defendants' contention was that the agreement in question was really a usufructuary mortgage and that there was no agreement to sell, which could be specifically enforced. Both the Courts below have found against the contention of the defendants that it was only a usufructuary mortgage and their decision on this point is undoubtedly correct on the facts of the case. In this Court, in addition to the contention that the agreement in question is only a usufructuary mortgage, the appellants have also raised the question that the deed of agreement is really a sale deed and therefore, it cannot be specifically enforced, though this point has not been raised in the memorandum of appeal. As I have already pointed out, the conclusion of the Courts below that the agreement is not a usufructuary mortgage is quite correct. The other contention put fo...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Savitri Ammal Vs. Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad217
Ramamurti, J. 1. Savithriammal, the plaintiff, has taken out this Originating Summons for the construction of the will dated 6-9-1948 of her late husband, M.G. Venugopal, who died in about 1949 leaving the will aforesaid bequeathing his properties to his wife with certain bequests for payments of money for his other relatives. She obtained a probate of this will in O. P. No. 140 of 1949. The relevant clause in the will which has to be construed by this Court runs as follows-'I hereby bequeath all my immoveable properties wherever situate and moveable properties such as furnitures, utensils, cash, bank deposit etc., to my wife Mrs. M.V. Savitriammal, to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime and thereafter to my daughter Miss M.V. Kalyani to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime without power of alienation. After the lifetime of my daughter Miss M.V. Kalyani, the properties then remaining shall be absolutely enjoyed by the children of my daughter, to be taken in equal share. In the event...
Tag this Judgment!Zabiya Bibi Vs. A. Sivaperumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: (1970)89MLJ1
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an application, to revise an order of the learned District Munsif of Salem, dated 7th December, 1966, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for examining herself on commission. I must straightaway point out that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 674 of 1965 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Salem. The present I.A. No. 2003 of 1966 for the purpose of examining her. on commission was filed on the ground that she was residing 200 miles away from Salem in Nilambur in Kerala State and her husband has been recently discharged from the Mental Hospital and she had been attending on her husband. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application holding that previously the respondent had filed an application directing the petitioner to be present in the Court and in that application no objection was taken by the petitioner that she could not because of the distance, be present, in Court. The learned District Munsif has further poi...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Hameed Sait (Died) by L.Rs. Vs. Rajagopala Pandarathar (Died) by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ604
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur dismissing his application for a personal decree against the first defendant. Pending the appeal, the first defendant died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The suit was instituted in 1940 to enforce a mortgage that had been executed by the first defendant on three villages in Gandarvakottai Zamindari. On 2Oth August, 1941) a preliminary decree was passed for Rs. 86,302-6-8. A final decree followed on 9th November, 1943. In 1949 the last execution application was taken out which was disposed of by a final order, dated 6th January, 1950. On 3rd January, 1951, the three villages, which formed the security under the mortgage, were notified as an estate and taken over with effect from that date under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. On 27th June, 1951, advance compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,793 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: [1969]39CompCas180(Mad); [1969]72ITR137(Mad)
Kamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The Ashok Leyland Limited, Madras, the res-pondent herein, is a public limited company which was originally incorporated on September 7, 1948, under the name and style of ' Ashok Motors Limited ' under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Apparently the change in name of the company was effectuated due to change in circumstances, which we shall presently animadvert to. Its business previously consisted in importing motor accessories marketed by ' Austins ' of the United Kingdom, assembling Austin cars and trucks and selling them as such. Under the articles of the company, it was authorised to carry on business as manufacturers, assemblers of, dealers in, hirers, repairers, cleaners, stores, warehousers of motor-cars, motor-cycles, cycle-cars, motors, scooters, motor-buses and lorries, trucks, tractors, cycles, bicycles and carriages, launches, boats and ships, aeroplanes, hydroplanes arid other vehicles and conveyance of all descriptions for carrying passengers or oth...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Inthirani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ386.
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the District Munsif of Kallakurichi allowing a claim petition filed by the two respondents. There was an attachment before judgment on 28th March, 1963. The respondents preferred a claim which was dismissed on 16th August, 1963. The petitioner decree-holder applied on 18th July, 1964, for re-attachment after getting the decree transferred to the Court below for the purpose of execution. That petition was dismissed on 26th September, 1964, for default of the decree-holder. He took out another execution petition for re-attachment and sale. It was at that stage the respondents again made a claim which has been allowed.2. It is urged for the petitioner that the second claim petition by the respondents was not maintainable. This is on the ground that the attachment before judgment should be taken to continue right through. I think that this means that the attachment before judgment and the re-attachment could co-exist, which can n...
Tag this Judgment!Nallammal Vs. Marimuthu Boyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ482
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This Second Appeal has been filed by one Nallammal and arises out of proceedings (E.P.No. 1830 of 1964) taken in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 354 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif, Erode. The decree restrained Nallammal, who was judgment-debtor 3 in the suit, and the other judgment-debtors by a permanent injunction 'from throwing rubbish or heaping mud, building-stones or other materials to the south of the gateway marked G in Exhibit 11 (e), and in any manner obstructing the access of the plaintiffs to their houses from the Local Fund Road leading to Bhavani through such gateway'. Put in plain terms, the decree directed that the judgment-debtors should not obstruct the access of the plaintiffs to their houses from the Local Fund Road leading to Bhavani through the gateway marked G in the Commissioner's plan marked as Exhibit II (e), in the suit and attached to the decree.2. The plaintiffs filed an execution petition E.P. No. 1830 of 1964 alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Sarojini Rajah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR504(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The matter relates to the assessment year 1953-54 and the material point turns on whether certain shares, which the assessee held in the Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, were an investment or constituted her stock-in-trade. The revenue as well as the Tribunal have considered that they were purchases by her as an investment. This controversy as to the character of her shareholding became relevant in the context of her claim for allowance of Rs. 42,534 as business loss incurred by her on the sale of the shares during the accounting year ended March 31, 1952. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances, there was every possibility of the transaction being one to book a loss for the purpose of reducing the tax liability of the assessee and, apart from it, the transaction also should be regarded but as an investment. Out of the holding by one Udaya Limited, in which the assessee was a director and her husband was the...
Tag this Judgment!M. R. Rm. Sp. L. Subranian Chettiar and Others Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR262(Mad)
VEERASAMI J. - This cases is very much on the border line, but we have come to the conclusion that the reference should be answered against the assessee. The question turns on the character on the receipt by sale of three items of immovable property during the accounting year ended April 13, 1959. The assessee and his brother constituted a Hindu undivided family, which carried on money-lending business in Rangoon and Colombo. On February 14, 1957, there was a partition at which the assets in respect of Rangoon are headquarters business were divided, and on March 31, 1957, there was a further partition in respect of the Colombo business. The assessees total share at the partition was valued at Rs. 4,60,779 which included advance to individuals amounting to Rs. 1,36,209. Moieties in three immovable properties were among the assets which fell to his share. The first item was sold on August 29, 1958, and the second on January 9, 1959, the third item was a site at Rangoon a part of which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sathappa Textiles Private Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, Circle I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR260(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The question in this petition relates to the propriety of the rejection of the return filed by the petitioner before the first respondent as out of time under section 22(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The petitioner, which is a private limited company, filed a return on April 1, 1961, for the assessment year 1960-61, the corresponding accounting year having ended on March 31, 1960, in which it showed a loss of Rs. 22,562 under the head of 'business'. This did not include unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate for the year. The petitioner showed in the return the figure of unabsorbed depreciation. But it is not clear whether it also included in it development rebate. But that is a matter for factual determination by the revenue. We are only concerned with the correct principle that should be applied to a return of this kind.This court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Speed-A-Way (P.) Ltd., the judgment in which is reported as an Appendix to Sri Hari Mills Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »