Chennai Court August 1968 Judgments
icco Engineers Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ343
K. Veeraswami, J.1. There was a delay of eight days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to Section 31 (1) was not complied with. Later on the admitted tax was paid. But it appears on a wrong view of the matter the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.2. We do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisoes could be read into one another. They provide for two separate matters. If and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. Nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. In that event, the relevant proviso will be the first one which enables the officer in case there is sufficient cause for the delay to excuse the delay. In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause....
Tag this Judgment!Reginald Danieal Vs. Sarojam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad365
ORDERAlagiriswami, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 25, Guardians and Wards Act, filed by the appellant for the custody of his son from the first respondent, his wife. The appellant's case was that on 19-11-1966 his son, aged six years, was taken away by the first respondent and is living with the second respondent her father. The first respondent contended that on 11-11-1966 the appellant came home fully drunk, beat her and dragged her out of the house and later left the house for good, that what he did upset her mentally and as the appellant did not return to the house till 19-11-1966, she had to leave the house. Her case further was that the appellant has taken to another woman by name Gomathi and he is unfit to be the guardian of the child. The lower court took the view that the point that arose for consideration was whether it was in the interests of the minor to hand over the custody of the child to the appellant and in order to determine that point it...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Vethamurthy Mudaliar Vs. Saroja Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ128
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal arises out of the petition (O.P. No. 112 of 1964) filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, under Section 13 (1) (viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it stood then, for a decree of divorce. Previously on 30th March, 1962 the Subordinate Judge's Court had passed an order in favour of the husband granting judicial separation on the ground of adultery of the wife. The husband alleged that for the space of two years or upwards after the passing of that decree they had not resumed cohabitation. Section 13 (1) (viii) of the Act as it stood enabled him to obtain a decree for divorce on that ground.2. The wife resisted the petition on the ground that the previous order of 30th March, 1962 was not passed after due enquiry and was practically an order of consent and that it was consequently void (according to her) and should not be made the foundation of a decree : for divorce.3. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried t...
Tag this Judgment!Mannarswami Nattar and ors. Vs. C.K. Arumugha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ317
M. Natesan, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits filed by the same plaintiff which raised a common question. The appeals have been preferred by the defendants in the respective suits, who have failed in the Courts below. The properties in question are erstwhile ryoti lands in the Zamin Village of Vilambur in Chingleput District. The village has been taken ever by the State under the Estates Abolition Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948). The plaintiff laid the suit against the defendants for what he termed his melwaram share in the yield from the lands as the absolute owner of the lands, with the vesting of the estate in the State. The substantial defence to the action was that, with the vesting of the estate in the Government, the liability to pay melwaram ceased, and, as occupants of the lands, they need pay only kist to the Government. The defendants denied that they were tenants under the plaintiff. The real question for decision is, as between the plaintiff on the one han...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arunachalam Asari (Died) and ors. Vs. Sivan Perumal Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad226
Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by him to enforce the mortgage, Ex. A-4, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 700 on 5-12-1953. The second defendant claimed rights under a sale deed, Ex. B-4, executed by the first defendant on 28-12-1953, for a sum of Rs. 1000. The plaintiff's mortgage was registered on 3-7-1954. The first defendant remained ex parte and the second defendant alone resisted the suit on the ground that the mortgage in favour or the plaintiff is a sham and nominal document fraudulently brought into existence antedating it after the sale deed Ex. B-4, in favour of the second defendant. He further contended that when he purchased the property from the first defendant, he purchased it in good faith for valuable consideration and without knowledge that the first defendant had already executed a mortgage deed, Ex. A-4, which was registered on 3-7-1954. The trial Court d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kulandaivelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad408; 1969CriLJ1406; (1969)1MLJ92
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner is accused 6 in S. C. No. 72 of 1966 on the file of the IIIrd Assistant Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Ho was originally charged along with several other accused under Sections 147, 148, 224, 225, I. P. Code etc. etc. and tried by the IIIrd Assistant Sessions Judge. Accused 5 and 7 and the petitioner alone were convicted and the rest were acquitted. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 224 and 323, I. P. C. and sentenced to under R. I. for one year and three months respectively by the Assistant Sessions Judge. On appeal, accused 5 and 7 were acquitted of all the charges and the petitioner was also acquitted under Section 323, I. P. C. but his conviction and sentence under Section 224, I. P. C. were confirmed.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are these: On the 20th February 1966 at about 8 p. m. the Sub-Inspector of Police, Turiayur, while he...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Expenditure Tax, Madras Vs. T.S. Krishna C/O T.V.S. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad43; [1970]78ITR541(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference involves assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, and arises under Section 25(1) of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957. The assessee, who is an individual, was charged to tax on his expenditure for the periods ended March 31, 1960 and 1961, which included the expenditure incurred by his wife and minor son during the years. For the first year, the expenditure of the wife was Rs. 10,324 and of the minor son Rs. 3,944 and for the next year it was Rs. 2002 for the wife and Rs. 29,439 for the minor son. It is common ground that the wife and the minor each had during the year her or his own properties and derived income there from. The Expenditure Tax Officer considered that both of them were dependents of the assessee within the meaning of Section 2 (g) (i) and that as such Section. 4 (i) would apply. On appeals, the view taken was that neither Section 4 (i) nor Section 4 (ii) would be applicable, and that being the case, the question whether they were dependents wit...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. N.K.S.H. Marudappa Pandian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR147(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The appellant in the appeals is the Union of India, represented by the Second Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli. The Uthamalai Zamin was notified and taken over with effect from January 3, 1951, under the provision?: of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The State Government deposited the last instalment of final compensation and also certain interim payments earlier. In proceedings under Section 42 of the Act, the Union figured as a creditor in respect of arrears of income-tax due for the assessment years 1947-48 to 1951-52 as well as penalties levied in respect of those years except 1951-52. The Tribunal disallowed the claim of the Union as against interim payments. Against this order in O.P. No. 41 of 1965 the Union has filed S.T.A. No. 4 of 1967. In the other appeal arising from O.P. No. 42 of 1965, the Tribunal held that demands for payment of arrears of income-tax made subsequent to January 3, 1951, could not be regarded as debts payable out of the compensation. On that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyan Chettiar and anr. Vs. T. Rangia Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ340
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. In 1904 one Venkata Chetty and one Rangammal executed a deed of trust Exhibit A-1 in favour of Maniam Kaliappa Goundar. In 1924, Kaliappa Goundar's nephew, the present third defendant, sold these properties under Exhibit A-2 in favour of one Billiammal. Billiammal has conveyed her rights in favour of the first defendant and the first defendant has created a maintenance right in favour of the second defendant over the suit properties. The plaintiff who is the trustee of Sri Kulandaivelayuthaswami Devasthanam, Kurundamalai, filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for possession of the suit properties on the ground that the properties had been endowed in favour of the Devasthanam. The contentions of the defendants were firstly that the effect of the document executed by Venkata Chetty and Rangammal in favour of Kaliappa Gounder was that he became the owner of the properties and the properties were merely charged with ...
Tag this Judgment!Periyaswami Padayachi Vs. the Government of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ362
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. There are only three grounds on which the admission of this appeal has been urged before us, somewhat strenuously, it must be conceded; nevertheless, we are not at all convinced that any of these grounds is substantial, or will justify the admission of the appeal from the considered judgment of Ramakrishnan, J., in W.P. No. 1654 of 1964 dismissing the writ petition with costs.2. The first ground is that under the third clause of Section 3 of Madras Regulation VII of 1828, under which the District Revenue Authority purported to act, in this case, that Authority had really no justification for enhancing the punishment, originally one of suspension for a considerable period, into one of removal from the office. It is further urged in this context, that the District Revenue Officer was not acting suo motu, but was acting at the instance of the person who was officiating instead of the writ petitioner, during the period of suspension. It is claimed that this perso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »