Chennai Court June 1971 Judgments
Alli Ammal and ors. Vs. Nataraja Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad195
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application of the first petitioner, who was the first defendant in the Court below, in I. A. No. 4114 of 1970 under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for partition against his two sisters, one brother and the legal representatives of two of his deceased sisters and obtained a preliminary decree on 1-2-1967. Subsequently, he filed an application for a final decree. The Court, at his request, appointed a Commissioner to divide the properties by metes and bounds. The Commissioner, after an inspection of the three items of property which were the subject-matter of the suit, reported that none of the items was divisible physically. All the parties were agreed that the properties could not be conveniently divided. Thereupon, the Court passed an order on 28-11-1968, directing the Commissioner to sell the three items in public auction, under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Andalammal Vs. B. Kanniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad5; (1971)2MLJ205
ORDER1. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the court below, instituted the suit for cancellation of a settlement deed executed by her on 11-5-1965 on the ground that it had been procured by fraudulent misrepresentation. In the settlement deed, she had valued the properties settled at Rs. 10,000. Taking this valuation as the basis, she paid a court-fee of Rs. 750-50 under Section 40(1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, upon a construction of Section 40(1) of the Act, held that in the case of document securing property having money value, the suit should be valued upon the market value of the property as on the date of the plaint, and not on the basis of the value set out in the settlement deed. Accordingly, he directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit court-fee after furnishing the market value of the property as on the date of the plaint. It is against this direction that the plaintiff has preferred this re...
Tag this Judgment!M. Md. Sahagthullah Vs. 5th Income-tax Officer, City Circle Iii, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR775(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The petitioner was a partner of the firm, Messrs. Ziaullah & Sons. Originally the firm was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52 in the status of an unregistered firm and the share income of the petitioner was determined at a particular sum and the said amount so determined was subjected to tax as well. The firm took up the matter further to the higher hierarchy and questioned the order of assessment of the Income-tax Officer, which determined the status of to petitioner as an unregistered firm. It is not in dispute that the High Court ultimately in a tax revision came held that the firm was entitled to registration. Consequent upon this, the Appellate Tribunal passed orders directing that the firm be recognised as a registered-firm. The order of the High Court was dated 24th February, 1961, and in June, 1961, the Tribunal gave the above direction. Pursuant to the above, the Income-tax Officer, for the assessment year 1951-52, with which we are con...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subramaniam Vs. Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad196
1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below has filed this second appeal. The suit was filed by him for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3715-20 against the defendant-insurance company. The plaintiff's lorry MDS 4779 was insured with the defendant against loss or damage by any accident for the period from 11-8-1962 to 10-8-1963. The licenced carrying capacity of the lorry was 5.392 tons as admitted in these proceedings. Subsequently on 7-11-1962 the licenced carrying capacity was increased to 6.1742 tons. The proposal for insuring the vehicle was made on 11-8-1962 and this proposal was signed by Parasmal Mahar, who was the financier and who had a hire purchase agreement in his favour. In this proposal form, which is marked as Ex. B1 in this case, in the column relating to particulars of vehicle to be insured, the licensed carrying capacity of the vehicle was given as 5 tons. The defendant accepted the proposal and issued the insurance policy No. 12710, CV, Ex. A-1 in this ca...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.M. Sayed Cassim Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR76(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, one of the shareholders of a company incorporated under the laws of Ceylon and admittedly functioning under the style of S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen & Bros. (Ceylon) Ltd., is aggrieved by an order issued by the 3rd Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, addressed as below :M/s. S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen & Bros. (Ceylon) Ltd.,by Shri S.V.M. Sayed Cassim, Middle Street, Kilakarai. The person who is said to represent the company is the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and three others are the directors of the company which is functioning wholly outside the taxable limits of India, and is outside the reach of the arm of taxation under the Indian Income-tax Act. Originally, the petitioner and three others as above were carrying on business in partnership under the name of S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen & Bros, at Colombo. On December 12, 1946, S.V.M. Mohamed Jamaludeen & Bros. (Ceylon) Ltd. was incorporated. The first directors and the promoter...
Tag this Judgment!M. Pattabiraman Vs. the Accommodation Controller, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad102
ORDER1. These two writ petitions are connected. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 33 Office Venkatachala Mudali St. Triplicane, Madras. He is living in the ground floor of the premises and the first floor is in the occupation of the second respondent, who is a Government allottee. The portion in the occupation of the second respondent consists of a hall verandah, kudam, living room, bed room etc. The petitioner with the intention of demolishing the first floor and reconstructing it has sought for permission from the Corporation of Madras to effect such alterations and ultimately obtained sanction therefor under building plan No. P. 2597 of 1970 dated 28-7-1970. But as the second respondent was an allottee of the premises through the Government the petitioner applied to the first respondent for delivery of possession of the same and effectively asked for a release of the first floor from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. In fact, the...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad316; (1971)2MLJ330
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against an order of remand made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, remaining the suit O.S. No. 462 of 1963 for trial once again by the trial court, the District Munsif Court of Arni. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 for partition of a half share in the A Schedule properties, Items 1 to 5, and for declaration of title and possession of the B Schedule properties Items 1 to 3. The suit was decreed by the trial court in respect of them 2 to 5 of A Schedule and was otherwise dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. It was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge. He thought that two additional issues were necessary which had not been framed by the trial court and solely on that ground he set aside the order of the learned District Munsif and remanded the suit for fresh trial permitting the parties to adduce additional evidence. Aggrieved by that the defendants have preferred this appeal. 2. To decide the question involved, it is nece...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Sowcar Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad198
ORDER1. The petitioner is a tenant of premises No.8 Prasanna Vinayakar Koil St, Mylapore, which belongs to the third respondent Alamelu Ammal. The third respondent purchased the same from its previous owner on 1-6-1966. After purchasing the building she called upon the petitioner tenant to vacate the same alleging inter ilia that she purchased the premises for her own occupation and for the use of the married daughters. The tenant denied the bona fides of the claim of the landlady. The landlady followed up the demand by another notice and subsequently approached the Government by addressing a letter on 15-4-1967 and prayed for exempting the building from the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Government called for a report from the Accommodation Controller. The Accommodation Controller after making enquiry of persons including the petitioner, submitted a report stating that the request was not bona fide. Though this report was given by the Accommodatio...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Kothandam and anr. Vs. V.N.S. Pothi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ197
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by the parents of an eight-year old girl who was knocked down by a Fiat car belonging to the first respondent Pothi Naicker, driven by the second respondent Moideen Pichai and insured with the third respondent, Pioneer Fire and General Insurance Co. The accident occurred on 20th February, 1968 about 4-45 P.M. They made a claim before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ramanathapuram for Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Fiat car and that the parents were entitled to compensation. He fixed the compensation at Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved by that, the parents have filed this appeal claiming Rs. 10,000. It may be mentioned that the owner of the car and the Insurance company filed in V.N.S. Pothi Naicker v. P.S. Kothandan C.M.A.No. 93 of 1970, for reduction of the quantum of compensation and that appeal was dismissed on 21st April, 1971 by Ganesan, J. 2. The finding of the Tribunal that the acc...
Tag this Judgment!M.i. Royappan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad435
ORDER1. The Petitioner is the Vice Chairman of the Kaniambadi Panchayat Union Council and the President of Adukkambarai village panchayat. A special meeting of the Union Council was convened by the Chairman on 2-9-1970 for three specific purposes, namely, election of chairman, co-option of member and election of a member to the Appointment Committee. It so happened that, after election of the Vice-Chairman was over, the other subjects were not taken up for consideration and the meeting, for reasons not known, was adjourned, but with the consent of the members present. The adjourned meeting for consideration of two other outstanding subjects as above was convened once again on 11-9-1970 at 2-30 p.m. Members of the Council were present. But it is common ground that the Chairman as well as the petitioner left the meeting abruptly thereby once again not considering the subjects in the agenda set for the meeting properly called. The petitioner's explanation is that, after adjourning the fir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »