Chennai Court April 1972 Judgments
M.L. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Sri Sai Baba, Represented by Its Trustees
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1972
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ507
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. He unsuccessfully resisted in the Courts below the suit, O.S. No. 2728 of 1960 filed originally on behalf of Sri Sai Baba temple for declaration of title and for possession of a room in the first floor of premises No. 13, Big Street, Triplicane, Madras-5 which is in his occupation. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the above suit and the rival pleadings between the parties have been fully and elaborately set out in the judgments of the Courts below and ( do not consider it necessary to set them out here again in much detail I therefore, straightway proceed to consider the questions involved in this second appeal.2. The substantial questions that are raised and are to be considered in this second appeal are : (1) whether door No. 13, Big Street, Triplicane, Madras-5, belonged to the joint family of Loganatha Mudaliar and his sons, including the appellant at any time or whether the same remained as self-acquire...
Tag this Judgment!Shelat Brothers and ors. Vs. Nanalal Harilal Shelat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad78
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The plaintiff and the second defendant were partners in a firm called Shelat Bros., carrying on business in Park Town, Madras. The plaintiff is the elder brother of the second defendant. It is not in dispute that the first defendant firm had the head office at Madras and a branch at Umrath. The accounts of the entire business were maintained at Madras and the second defendant was in management of the business in Madras, while the plaintiff was in charge of the business of the branch office at Umrath, and this arrangement was from the year 1947. Even in the notice of dissolution given by the plaintiff under Ex. B-1 dated 3-6-1960, he admits that he did not come to Madras for a period of 20 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the second defendant was in sole management of the business at Madras for the last twenty years. It appears that the business at Umrath was not substantial and it is the firm at Madras which earned sufficient ...
Tag this Judgment!Shelat Brothers, a Partnership Firm of Partners (A) Nanalal Harilal Sh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ315
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The plaintiff and the second defendant were partners in a firm called Shelat Brothers, carrying on business in Park Town, Madras. The plaintiff is the elder brother of the 2nd defendant. It is not in dispute that the first defendant firm had the head office at Madras and a branch at Umrath. The accounts of the entire business were maintained at Madras and the 2nd defendant was in management of the business in Madras, while the plaintiff was in charge of the business of the branch office at Umrath, and this arrangement was from the year 1947. Even in the notice of dissolution given by the plaintiff under Exhibit B-1, dated 3rd June, 1960, he admits that he did not come to Madras for a period of 20 years. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the 2nd defendant was in sole management of the business at Madras for the last 20 years. It appears that the business at Umrath was not substantial and it is the firm at Madras which e...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob A. Chakramakkal Vs. Mrs. Rosy J. Chakramakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ520
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. O.S.A. No. 3 of 1971 is against the judgment of Maharajan, J. in O.P. No. 270 of 1970 filed by Jacob A. Chakramakkal against Mrs. Rosy J. Chakramakkal, under the Gurdians and Wards Act VIII of 1890, for custody of his three children.2. O.S.A. No. 2 of 1971 is against the judgment of the same learned Judge in Applications Nos. 12, 1259, 1260, 2503 of 1968, 337, 759, 840, 968, 1466, 1729, 1730, 1731 of 1969 and 278, 1156, 1372 and 2629 of 1970 filed in O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962 and G.M.P. No. 15737 of 1968 filed in O.S.A. Nos. 63 and 65 of 1964, and Applications Nos. 1383 of 1968, 215, 216, 1014, 1406 of 1969 and 1595, 1969 of 1970 filed in O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962.3. The various applications, aforementioned, (except O.P. No. 270 of 1970) were filed as an offshoot of O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962. In O.M.S. No. 12 of 1962, Mrs. Rosy Chakramakkal (the respondent in the appeals under consideration) obtained a decree for judicial separation from her husband, Jacob Chakramakkal (t...
Tag this Judgment!ibramsa Rowther (Minor) and ors. Vs. Sk. Meerasa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Mad467
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. O.S. No. 90 of 1960. Sub Court, Tiruchy, and defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 are the appellants, defendants 7 to 13 claiming under an alienation from the grandmother of the third defendant. Defendants 14 to 16 are the alienees through the plaintiff. The District Board of Madura, who was impleaded as the sixth defendant and subsequently exonerated is not concerned in this litigation. The plaintiff, Sheik Meerasa Rowther, filed the suit for partition claiming to be entitled to 287/720th shares in the estate left behind by his father. Sahib Sangheer Khan who died in 1931. The third defendant, who is the grandson (daughter's son) of one Appavoo Rowther, another son of Sangheer Khan, is the main contesting defendant, his defence being that, immediately after Sangheer Khan's death in 1931, there was a family arrangement, in pursuance of which there has been a complete partition by metes and bounds, in which the properties situate in Thamarap...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Ibramsa Rowther and ors. Vs. Sheik Meerasa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1972
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ466
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition, O.S. No. 90 of 1960, Sub-Court, Trichy, and defendants 3, 4, 7 to 11 and 13 are the appellants, defendants 7 to 13 claiming under an alienation from the grandmother of the third defendant. Defendants 14 to 16 are the alienees through the plaintiff. The District Board of Madura, who was impleaded as the sixth defendant and subsequently exonerated is not concerned in this litigation. The plaintiff, Sheik Meerasa Rowther, filed the suit for partition claiming to be entitled to 287/720ths share in the estate left behind by his father, Sahib Sangheer Khan who died in 1931. The third defendant, who is the grand son (daughter's son) of one Appavoo Rowther, another son of Sangheer Khan, is the main contesting defendant, his defence being that, immediately after Sangheer Khan's death in 1931, there was a family arrangement, in pursuance of which there has been a complete partition by metes and bounds, in which the properties s...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Swarnammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR366(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. One K. S. Narayanaswamiah died on February 13, 1958, leaving behind him his two wives and six sons, one by the first wife and five by the second wife. The deceased had left a will bequeathing the various properties in his possession and enjoyment to his two wives and his sons. On the death of the said Narayanaswamiah, one Parasuraman, the eldest son by the second wife and who held a general power of attorney for other accountable persons submitted an account of the estate of the deceased in the prescribed form to the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty determined the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased at Rs. 3,06,955 and the duty payable at Rs. 21,930.15. He had treated all the properties as having been held by the deceased in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family, and this was in conformity with the stand taken by the accountable persons at the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Shah Mohanraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR129(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One Shah Pukharaj hailing from . Northern India came to Coimbatore 30 years ago and started a business in handloom sarees, yarn, lace, etc., in the name of Shah Pukharaj Mohanraj which is the name of his son. Shah Pukharaj, and his son, Mohanraj constituted a joint family. Admittedly, the son also was taking active part in the said business along with his father. However, the income from the business was being assessed in the hands of the father in the status of an individual. But in the assessment year 1956-57 he claimed to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family in respect of the income from the above business, but this claim was turned down by the revenue and he was assessed as an individual as in the earlier years. Pukharaj and his son, the assessee, effected a partition of the joint family properties on February 25, 1959. But, the business did not form part of the subject-matter of the said partition. But by a partnership deed dated March 27, 1959, th...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Ayyathurai Muthuraja (by L. Rs.) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR449(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is doing business in commission and consignment sales of plantains. For the assessment year 1960-61, he returned a loss of Rs. 1,736 as an individual. The Income-tax Officer found from the assessee's account that a sum of Rs. 32,466 had been credited during the assessment year in the fictitious name of one P. Shanmugam and a major portion of the same stood debited during the year. Before the Income-tax Officer the assessee had ultimately admitted that P. Shanmugam is a fictitious name and that the credit entry in that account really represented his own transactions in consignment sales of plantains and that the credits represented his profits and the debits his losses in such sales and offered for assessment the closing credit balance of Rs. 6,062 in the name of P. Shanmugam. But the Income-tax Officer while treating the credits as the assessee's profits, however, declined to treat the debits as the losses of the assessee. However, taking a lib...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.V. Vellachi Achi Vs. R.M.A. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ468
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coddalore, dismissing the petition, E.P. No. 201 of 1967 filed for executing the decree in O.S. No 598 of 1966 of the Singapore High Court.2. The plaintiff-petitioner who is the appellant filed the suit against the respondent for recovery of a very large sum on the basis of the alleged advance to the firm of which he was a partner, in Singapore High Court. She obtained a decree against, the respondent and sought to realise the decree amount of Rs. 3,90,432-01 with interest and costs, by attachment and sale of the immovable properties, belonging to the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The execution petition was filed under Section 44-A, Civil Procedure Code since the decree of the High Court of Singapore is the decree of a reciprocating territory.3. The Execution Petition was resisted by the respondent on the following grounds, (a) that there was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »