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.
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Board of Revenue Vs. M. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ95
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Board of Revenue, Madras, has referred to us, for our decision, under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, about the correct classification, for the purpose of levy of Stamp Duty under the Indian Stamp Act, of an instrument. The specific question propounded to us for decision is whether the instrument, dated 20th March, 1965 (deed of dissolution of partnership) operates both as a deed of dissolution of partnership and a deed of partition.2. Under Article 45 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, for an instrument of partition as defined by Section 2 (15) of the Act, the stamp duty leviable is the same as on a Bond for the amount of the value of the separated share or shares of the property. Under Article 46 of the same Schedule, an instrument of dissolution of partnership has to be levied stamp duty of a fixed sum of Rs. 20 in Madras State. Section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act provides that any instrument comprising or relating to...
Jayaraj Anthony Vs. Mary Seeni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad103
Eamakbishnan, J.1. This case came before this Court on an earlier occasion and our decision has been reported in Jayaraj v. Seeni Animal, : AIR1967Mad242 . The reference arose out of a petition under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, by the husband for a declaration of nullity in respect of the marriage between him and his wife, Mary Seeniammal, on the substantive ground that the wife declined all access to the husband subsequent to the marriage and refused to consummate the marriage and hence must be regarded as impotent both at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the proceedings. When the matter came before this Court on the earlier occasion this Court found that sufficient evidence had not been adduced for the purpose of proof of the alleged impotency, and after setting out the relevant principles, this Court remanded the matter to the lower Court for disposal after a fresh evidence.2. After the remand, the learned District Judge took a great deal of t...
Mrs. Dawn Henderson Vs. D. Henderson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad104
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the parties under Section 17 of the same Act.2. The petitioner is the wife, and she has put forward, as the ground for dissolution of the marriage, the Clause of Section 10 which refers to 'adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et thoro.' In the body of the petition, the petitioner states that the respondent, her husband, married her, according to Christian rites, at St. Joseph's Church Golden Rock, Tiruchirapalli on 27-5-1961. But soon after the marriage, the respondent behaved to her with great cruelty, and brought drunken young men to the house and attempted to constrain or induce the petitioner to submit to the indecent overtures of those men. He also beat her and starved her, and in brief, attempted to compel her to...
Doris Padmavathy Vs. V. Christodass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad188
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathi (petitioner) and her husband v. Christodass (respondent). We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, 'adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et thoro.' 2. The facts are quite simple. In her petition, the petitioner states that she married the respondent on 15-9-1958, according to the rights of the Christian religion. Immediately after the marriage, the husband and wife lived together at Bhilai and later at Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was then transferred in 1961 to the Thermal Station at the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Th...
A.B. Manual Vs. Mrs. Libian Margaret Manual and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad178
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. This is a case referred under Section 10 and Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, IV of 1869, by the learned District Judge of South Arcot, for confirmation of the decree nisi dissolving the marriage. The facts are simple. The petitioner and the first respondent were married, according to the rites of the Christian religion, on 8th August 1951, at the Royapettah Purification Church, Madras. They lived together as husband and wife from 1951 till 30th September 1964. The petitioner had taken up employment in the Neiveli Lignite Corporation and, they were living together at that place. According to the sworn testimony of the petitioner (P. W. 1) on 30th September 1964, his wife informed him that she was no longer willing to live with him in matrimony, and, she left his house and deserted him. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the first respondent and the second respondent were openly living together as husband and wife in a village near Neiveli. In his ...
Doris Padmavathy Vs. Christodass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ645
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) made by the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by him dissolving the marriage between Doris Padmavathy (petitioner) and her husband V. Christodass (respondent),, We may state, at the outset, that the respondent has remained ex parte throughout, and that the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground specified in a clause of Section 10 of the Act, namely, ' adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to divorce a mensa et toro '.2. The facts are quite simple. In her petition, the petitioner states that she married the respondent on 15th September, 1958 according to the rights of the Christian religion. Immediately after the marriage, the husband and wife lived together at Bhilai and later at Tiruchirapalli. The respondent was then transferred in 1961 to the Thermal Station at the Neyveli Lignite Co...
J. Chandrasekharan Vs. G. Rosaline Pushpamoni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad211
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1.This is a reference under Sections 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act by the learned District Judge South Arcot, for confirmation of the decree declaring the marriage between the parties (the petitioner and the first respondent) to be null and void. In the petition itself, the two grounds upon which dissolution of the marriage was sought under the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 are set forth in paras 5, 6 and 7. The first ground is the somewhat extraordinary one that the marriage was performed on 26-4-1965 according to Christian rites, that on 4-12-1965 the first respondent gave birth to a female child in the Government Hospital at Ulundurpet, that this child, a fully matured infant was born after about 212 days of the marriage, that the normal period of gestation is 270 days, and that, hence, this child must have been conceived by the wife prior to the marriage. The husband affirmed that he had no sexual relation with the wife prior to the d...
Samraj Nadar Vs. Abraham Nadachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad434
Venkataraman, J. 1. This is an appeal by a Christian husband against the order dated 3-2-1965 of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari dismissing his petition O. P. No. 41 of 1964 filed under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant and the respondent Abraham Nadachi were married according to the Christian rites in 5956. The petition itself starts by saying that there was an estrangement between the parties. As a result thereof, the wifefiled M. C. No. 31 of 1961 before a Magistrate under Section 488 of the Criminal P.C. and obtained an order for maintenance of Rs. 25/- per month. The date of this order appears to be 2-3-1962. The husband, for his part, filed O. P. No. 44 of 1962 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the District Judge Kanyakumari. The appellant however, did not press that petition and an endorsement was made by him on 28-3-1963 to the following effect. 'It is unnecessary to proceed with the petition.'...
J. Chandrasekharan Alias Sekhar Vs. G. Rosaline Pushpamoni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ607
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 10 and 17 of the Indian Divorce Act by, the learned District Judge of South Arcot, for confirmation of the decree declaring the marriage between the parties (the petitioner and the first respondent) to be null and void. In the petition itself, the two grounds upon which dissolution of the marriage was sought under the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) are set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. The first ground is the somewhat extraordinary one that the marriage was on 26th April, 1965 according to Christian rites, that on 4th December, 1965 the first respondent gave birth to a female child in the Government Hospital at Ulundurpet, that this child, a fully matured infant was born after about 212 days of the marriage, that the normal period of gestation is 270 days, and that, hence, this child must have been conceived by the wife prior to the marriage. The husband affirmed that he had no sexual relation with the wi...
M.A. Khader and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Periamet Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC104(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In W. Ps. Nos. 2577 to 2580 of 1965, the petitioner seeks in the main for a writ of certiorari to quash the assessment orders made by the respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of transactions which are admittedly inter-State sales. The admitted facts may now be noticed. The assessee is a dealer in tanned hides and skins. For the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 he returned a net turnover of varied amounts which admittedly related to inter-State sales exigible to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The first respondent by his orders made thereon for the respective assessment years brought to tax such a turnover as being liable under the Central Sales Tax Act and finally levied the tax due and as found by him. The impugned orders in the main writ petitions were passed on 31st May, 1960, for the assessment year 1958-59, 13th March, 1961, for the assessment year 1959-60, 30th November, 1961, for the assessment year 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »