Chennai Court February 1969 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.
V. Nagalingam Vs. Sivagnanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ246
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a member of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council representing Kakkarai Panchayat to quash the order of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif), Pattukottai, holding that the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the aforesaid Panchayat Union Council is valid and that he is not disqualified to stand for the election. The petitioner and the respondent, by virtue of their being elected as Presidents of Kakkarai Panchayat and Mela Ulur Panchayat respectively, became members of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council. The Panchayat Union Council consists of 58 Panchayats. In the election held for the Chairmanship of the Orthanad Panchayat Union Council, the respondent was declared as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union securing 34 votes as against 17 votes got by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as the Chairman of the Panchayat Union in an election petition, O.P. No. 56 of 1965 on the file of the...
M. Ramu and anr. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad331; (1970)ILLJ299Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. W. P. No. 504 of 1989 is filed by an employee of the Indian, Overseas Bank Ltd., Madras and W. P. No. 505 of 1969 by an employee of the State Bank of India, Madras, for the issue of writs of mandamus to strike down the provisions of Section 36-AD of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act 1968, as unconstitutional and illegal.2. The Government of India introduced in Parliament Banking Laws Amendment Bill on 23-2-1967. The Bill mentioned several objects for its introduction, viz., (1) to snap or at least to make ineffective the link between a few industrial houses and the banks, (2) to change the exclusive orientation of the Banks towards industry and business and to reorient credit facilities to several priority sectors such as agriculture, small scale industries, rural finance, cooperation and exports, (3) to arrest monopolistic trends of the investment of funds of the Banks and misdirection of bank's resources, and (4) to ensure that the credit decisions of the managemen...
D. Meenakshisundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. P. Nammalwar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad402; (1970)1MLJ6
Sadasivam, J. 1. The appellants filed the suit in the lower Court for themselves and as representatives of the Sirugudi Vellala Community of Tirunelveli District for a declaration that the first defendant Nammalwar is not the duly appointed trustee of the suit math called Sri Dakshi-namoorthi Matam, and for framing a scheme for the selection of the head of the math from among the Sirugudi Vellalas of Tirunelveli District having the necessary qualification in the vacancy that would be caused by the reason of the said declaration and to vest the math and its properties in the person so selected and to call upon the first defendant to render atrue and proper account of the income and expenditure of the math from May, 1957. 2. The suit math was founded by one Vedanayagaswami, who executed a registered will Exhibit A-1 dated 20th April 1920 providing for the management of the suit math. It is clear from the will and particularly from the second schedule of the same Riving a description of t...
N. Annamalai and ors. (by Guardian) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR809(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a consolidated reference in respect of the assessment year 1961-62. One S. RM. S. Narayanan Chettiar acted as the guardian of his four minor sons in carrying on money-lending business in their names. The Tribunal has held by a curious reasoning that the income derived from the business should be charged under Section 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. It referred to Section 2(6AA) and Section 40 and thought that, inasmuch as the minors, because of their inability for the reason, could rot by themselves carry on the business, the income derived from the business should be treated as unearned income and charged to tax under Section 12. It felt that Section 40 merely provided for recovery of tax on the income of a minor from the guardian in the same manner in which it could have been recovered from the minor himself if he was a major and that what the law prohibited could not be acted upon with the result that the income from the business, though it belonged to the ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late V.L. Ethiraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: [1969]72ITR860(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This raises a problem of interpretation of Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) read with Section 9 as also Section 27 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.2. Sri Y. L. Ethiraj, a well-known barrister of this court, died on August 18, 1960, leaving a will dated April 21, 1952, by which, he nominated the official trustee as the sole executor. The official trustee declared the value of the deceased's estate at Rs. 7,47,682. Among other items, the question was whether the estate included two loans of Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 4,000 respectively, which the deceased had given to his niece and niece-in-law. These loans appear to have been given between April 1, 1956, and March 31, 1957. The deceased himself, in his wealth statement for the year ended March 31, 1957, included the two sums and stated that his niece and niece-in-law might or might not pay back the amounts. In his subsequentwealth statements also, the two sums were included, the last of which was filed on November 7, 1959, for the y...
M. Ramu and anr. Vs. the Government of India, Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ333
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. W.P. No. 504, of 1969 is filed by an employee of the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., Madras, and W.P. No. 505 of 1969 by an employee of the State Bank of India, Madras, for the issue of writ of mandamus to strike down the provisions of Section 36-AD of the Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1968, as unconstitutional and illegal.2. The Government of India introduced in Parliament Banking Laws Amendment Bill on 23rd February, 1967. The Bill mentioned several objects for its introduction, viz., (1) to snap or at least to make ineffective the link between a few industrial houses and the banks, (2) to change the exclusive orientation of the Banks towards industry and business and to re-orient credit facilities to several priority sectors such as agriculture, Small-scale Industries, rural finance, co-operation and exports, (3) to arrest monopolistic trends of the investment of funds of the Banks and mis-direction of bank's resources, and (4) to ensure that the credit decisions...
Manikka Narasimhachari Vs. M.V. Ramasubbier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ337
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 99 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai is the appellant. The ancestor of the parties was one Manicka Sankaranarayana Iyer, who died in 1928, leaving behind him five sons, (a) one Venkatachalam Iyer, the father of the first plaintiff, (b) Ramudu Iyer, the father of plaintiffs 2 to 5, (c) one Ramakrishna Iyer, the first defendant (his sons being defendants 2, 4 and 5), (d) Narasimhier, the third defendant and (e) one Lakshmana Iyer, since dead, whose widow is the sixth plaintiff. This Manicka Sankaranarayana Iyer was conducting charity and Annadanam trust and certain other charities and in order to secure efficient and proper performance of the charities, the ancestor, Manicka Sankaranarayana Iyer and his sons executed a settlement deed marked Exhibit A-1 on 3rd June, 1908. The said deed inter alia provides that Sankaranarayana Iyer, the father, should be the first trustee, that after his death the senior-most male m...
Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR380(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The facts in this reference are the same and the questions are : '1, Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 23A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, are attracted 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the commercial profit to be considered is Rs. 84,050 and the tax to be taken into account is Rs. 39,000 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, tax under Section 23A can be levied on profits exempt undtr Section 15C ' 2. So far as the third question is concerned, counsel for the assessee, at whose instance this reference has been made, does not press it. It is, therefore, not necessary to answer this question. As regards the first two questions, they turn on the propriety of including the two sums in the computation of commercial profits for the purpose of Section 23A. So far as the loss claimed on account of the farm said to be conducted by the assesse...
T. Subbiah Vs. S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad85; 1970CriLJ254
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused in Crime No. 4 of 1968. District Crime Branch, Rama-nathapuram at Madurai, against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srivili-putur, directing him to appear on 27-11-1968 for taking his specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of investigation.2. The relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioner are briefly as follows;3. The petitioner was arrested by the Rajapalavam Police in connection with certain offences of cheating, forgery etc., alleged to have been committed by him. He was subsequently released on bail. While the investigation was pending, the Inspector of Police. District Crime Branch. Ramanathapuram. filed a memo on 21-9-1968 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srivilliputtur, requesting him to direct the petitioner to give his specimen handwriting and affix his specimen signature both in ink and pencil for the purpose of further ...
M. AllauddIn Vs. P.S. Lakshminarayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad247
ORDER1. This petition is directed against an order of the First Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, refusing to allow an amendment of the plaint. The suit as laid was for a permanent injunction on the footing that the plaintiff was in possession and that the defendant should be restrained from interfering with it. There was an application for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit and in the counter affidavit, it seems to have been alleged by the defendant that he was in possession. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the application to add a prayer for recovery of possession. The dismissal of the application was grounded on the supposition of the Munsif that the suit site appeared to have potential value as house site and if the amendment were allowed, the value for; the purpose of jurisdiction would probably exceed the Court's powers. On that view the Munsif directed the plaint to be returned for presentation before the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, which al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »