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.
Konappa Mudaliar Vs. Kusalaru Alias Munuswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad328
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit relates to a house which originally belonged to one Venkatachalam. His son Balu left the house in 1932 and was thereafter not heard of. Venkatachalarn also died soon after. From the evidence in this case it appears that Balu's wife Thirupathiammal, who is the plaintiff's vendor also left the house at about the same time and went to live with her parents. On 27-4-1945, she executed a sale in plaintiff's favour. The first defendant purchased the same property from Chennammal, Venkatachala's widow on 6-12-1945. The matter came up once before to this Court, on appeal. The finding of the Courts below that the plaintiff had title to the property was confirmed. It was remanded to the lower appellate Court for a finding whether the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years of suit. After remand, the' learned District Judge, Salem, has, after an exhaustive discussions of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plainti...
Kandavelu Mudaliar Vs. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ279
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, Kandavelu Mudaliar seeks to revise the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 20 per month to his illegitimate child born through the respondent. The petitioner employed as a charge hand in Switch Gear department in Larson and Toubro-Limited, Madras, joined duty in Madras on 2nd January, 1965 after he was transferred from Bombay and was living with his father. The respondent, Rajammal, was working as a maid servant, in the house of the petitioner's father,. Kalyanasundara Mudaliar for three years till a year prior to this case. Both the -petitioner and the respondent became intimate and this resulted in the respondent Rajammal becoming pregnant. The respondent, Rajammal complained about it to the petitioner and he gave her some pills to abort the child, but the attempt was not successful. After the birth of the child, the petitioner refused to have anything to do with the respondent, Rajammal.2. Raj...
Management of Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company Ltd. Vs. D. Ramachandra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ384
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution is the Management of Messrs. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Company, Limited Madras. The second respondent, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Madras, decided a claim petition filed under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the first respondent, D. Ramachandran, and awarded him gratuity, computed at a certain rate. It is against this order awarding gratuity that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.2. Though notice was given in the writ petition to the first respondent, he has not appeared and the matter was heard and decided ex parte.3. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the petitioner-concern, there is, in existence, a gratuity scheme. It provides for the payment of gratuity only in the contingencies of normal retirement at the age of 55 or over if there is an approved extention of service, or discontinuance of service due to deat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.T.M.S. Mahmood
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR100(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This case relates to the assessment year 1960-61. The assessee was a dealer in semi-precious stones at Colombo. On February 18 and 19, 1960, he purchased a total of 750 Feutura and Romer watches for Rs. 33,125. On the night of February 19, 1960, at about 10 p. m. while he carried the watches in a bag from his shop to his house, two police constables stopped him and forcibly removed the bag from his possession. On a complaint by him to the police and as a result of investigation, 489 watches only were recovered from the police constables and restored to the assessee. These watches he sold in the course of the next year, the profit of which was treated as business income and brought to tax. The theft of the remaining watches resulted in a loss of Rs. 13,271. For the year in question, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 1,040 from the Colombo business, which was computed after deducting the loss. These facts are not in dispute. The Income-tax Officer declined to allow ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›