Chennai Court April 1971 Judgments
V.K.S. Sivam Vs. Thirupathiswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad9
1. The decree-holder is the appellant herein and his grievance is that the learned First Additional District Judge, Coimbatore had held that the respondent. Judgment-debtor has no means to pay the decree amount in spite of his finding that the respondent has some houses in N. G. R. Street, Coimbatore as revealed by Ex. A1.2. It is now established by Ex. A1 that the respondent judgment-debtors has some houses in N. G. R. Street, Coimbatore and the only question for consideration is whether possession of the said houses is tantamount to the fact that the respondent has means to pay the decree amount or a substantial portion thereof. The learned District Judge has observed in paragraph 6 of his Judgment that mere ownership of immovable property cannot by itself be taken to mean that the respondent herein has means to pay the decree amount. In Mohamed Ibrahim v. State Bank of Travancore, : AIR1964Mad233 , a Division Bench of this Court has held that 'means' occurring in Section 51 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!N. Thangappan Vs. Subadra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad10; (1971)IIMLJ220
ORDER1. The petitioner herein filed an application O. P. No. 436 of 1967 under Section 7 of the Madras Marumakattayam Act 1932, herein after referred to as the Madras Act, for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that the respondent was suffering from chronic disease from her childhood and that it was not possible for the petitioner to have a married life with her. That petition was resisted by the respondent contending that she is not suffering from any disease or illness. She in her turn filed I. A. 4481 of 1968 for permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 75 per month under Section 10-B introduced in the Madras Act by the Kerala Act 26 of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Kerala Act, and I. A. 4482 of 1968 for Rs. 200 for the expenses of the litigation. In the application for alimony the petitioner contended that an application for alimony under Section 10-B introduced by the Kerala Act will not lie, as the Kerala Act had no application within the Madras Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Kanna Alias Mahalakshmi Ammal Vs. Krishnaswami Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad247
1. O. P. No. 99 of 1962 out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the respondent-husband Krishnaswami Achari against the appellant, his wife Kanna alias Mahalakshmi Ammal under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram had decreed restitution; and on appeal the learned District Judge of Ramanthapuram had confirmed the said order. Hence the appeal by the wife.2. The marriage between the parties took place in the year 1951 and they were both living together amicably in the adjacent houses divided only by a partition wall and the appellant gave birth to two daughters, the last of whom was born in the month of Avani, 1959, in the house of the appellant's parents.3. The respondent-husband claims that, after the birth of the second child, the appellant did not go back tot he respondent's house, as a result of a dispute between her father and the respondent in respect of a partnership business which t...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kareem (Died) and ors. Vs. the Special Officer for Wakfs, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad8; (1971)2MLJ218
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit is for declaration that the publication dated 6-5-1959 in the official Gazette in respect of the suit property declaring that it is a wakf property is illegal, ultra vires and void in so far as it is against the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 and for setting aside the same.2. The plaint allegations are that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4, that the fifth defendant is the usufructuary mortgagee of the said property and that the suit property is not wakf property within the meaning of he Wakf Act but private property belonging to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The authorities, however, called upon the plaintiff to register the suit property as wakf property and the plaintiff was resisting the claim. While so, the plaintiff's case is that the suit property has been notified as wakf property and that the plaintiff was informed on 6-10-1960 of the publication in the Gazette dated 6-5-1959 of the suit property as wak...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganathan Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Pattukottai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad7; (1971)2MLJ167
ORDER1. This petition raises an interesting and important question of interpretation of sub-section (2) of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the Act and an award was passed on 25-7-1966. The award that was sent by post to the petitioner was received by him on 19-9-1966. On 31-10-1966, the petitioner addressed a communication to the respondent, the Land Acquisition Officer, protesting against the quantum of compensation and requesting that a reference may be made to the court under Section 18 of the Act. The respondent received the communication on 1-11-1966, but declined to make a reference contending that he received the requisition after the expiry of the time fixed under the Act. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act.2. Sub-Section (2) of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads-'The application...
Tag this Judgment!South Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Subramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad49; [1971]41CompCas986(Mad); (1971)1MLJ198
ORDER1. The only question that arises in this revision petition is whether the award of Rs. 600/- as compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur, to the first respondent herein under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is correct.2. The first respondent was doing business in gypsum at Kumbakonam. He had purchased gypsum on 26th May, 1968 at Pollachi and after loading the same in the lorry MDR 3549 belonging to the second respondent on 26th Many, 1968 for transport from Pollachi to Thanjavur, he also travelled in the lorry by taking his seat by the side of the driver of the lorry., The lorry dashed against a milk van and also against a tree about four furlongs south of Sengipatti village on the road to Thanjavur. On account of that accident the first respondent had sustained grievous injury on his leg. According to him his left ankle was fractured and his left heel was cut. He is said to have been in hospital for 12 days and later on treated by a private doctor fo...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Parvathi Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad52; (1971)2MLJ174
ORDER1. As these two revision petitions are connected, they are dealt with together.2. Palaniappa Chettiar, the petitioner in C. R. P. 502 of 1967 is a lessee of a vacant site of land of 21 cents in Bhavani Village from the year 1947 and the lease in his favour was for a period of 10 years under Ex. A-1 and the original owner was one Peer Batcha Sahib. In 1948 he sub-leased a portion of the site to one Janakiram under Exhibit A. 2. Janakiram put up a superstructure and was paying the ground rent to the lessee, Palaniappa Chettiar. In 1949 he sub-leased another portion of the leasehold property to one Baldev Prasad under Exhibit A. 3. The sub-lessee, Janakiram, after he put up the superstructure assigned his rights to Baldev Prasad in September 1948, as a result of that assignment the sub-lessee Baldev Prasad came to possess two vacant sites under Exhibits A. 2 and A. 3 Baldey Prasad died in the year 1952 leaving behind his wife, Thulasi Bai and a daughter Paravathi Bai who are in occup...
Tag this Judgment!G.D. Narendra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR647(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Though the point involved in these two cases are the same, the facts are slightly different. In both the writ petitions the petitioner is the accountable person. In W. P. No. 220 of 1966, the petitioner was the beneficiary under the will of late M. Mouna Guruswami Naidu, Zamindar of Neikarapatti. Mouna Guruswami Naidu died on October 23, 1956. The estate of the testator was assessed to estate duty by the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Southern Zone, who arrived at the principal value of the estate at Rs. 41,09,124 and levied an estate duty of Rs. 10,89,443.40. On appeal, the Central Board of Revenue, by its order dated March 3, 1960, reduced the principal value of the estate by Rs. 4,90,270. In the meantime, the petitioner had to take out a probate of the will of late Mouna Guruswami Naidu, When the Deputy Controller finalised the estate duty assessment on August 30, 1958, he took into account a sum of Rs. 87,049.60 paid as and towards probate duty and after de...
Tag this Judgment!Alagarswami Chettiar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ187
S. Ganesan, J.1. Thiru Alagarswami Chettiar the husband has preferred this appeal against the order in CM.A. No. 15 of 1968 on the file of the learned District Judge of Madurai.2. Srimathi A. Lakshmi, the respondent herein is the wife of the appellant and she had filed O.P. No. 143 of 1961, out of which the appeal arises, for a decree for divorce against the appellant under Section 13(2)(1) and Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent herein is admittedly the second wife of the appellant, and it is not disputed that the marriage between the parties took place before the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, came into force and that, on the date of the application for divorce, the first wife of the appellant was admittedly living. Nor is it disputed that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent Was entitled to present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree for divorce on the ground that the first...
Tag this Judgment!Cement Distributors Private Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR163(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It was an assessee formerly on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle ' B', Madras, and now within the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle II, Madras-34, the 2nd respondent herein. For the assessment year 1959-60 (the previous accounting year ending with October 31, 1958) the petitioner submitted a return of a total income of Rs. 4,89,758. The Income-tax Officer completed the petitioner's assessment under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the old Act'), and would not accept the return of the petitioner and redetermined the total income of the petitioner at Rs. 8,10,980. He disallowed certain revenue expenditure claimed by the petitioner on the ground that there was no evidence of such incurring of expenditure and that the claim for deduction was not bona fide. While completing the petitioner's ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »