Chennai Court April 1972 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.
Nagoor Rowther Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad360; (1973)1MLJ198
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for a declaration of his title, possession and injunction and for mesne profits. The suit was in respect of ten items and there were four defendants. The plaintiff obtained a decree in respect of Items 1 to 6 and 9 and 10 as against defendants 1, 3 and 4 and that is not the subject-matter of appeal here. The second defendant is in possession of Items 7 and 8 and this second appeal relates only to these two items.2. The facts leading up to this second appeal are these: The plaintiff as assignee-decree-holder of a decree in O. S. 550 of 1930 took proceedings to execute that decree and in execution thereof purchased these two items along with others in court-auction on 24-10-1935. He alleged that he took delivery of possession in pursuance of his purchase on 2-12-1938. The plaintiff's further case was that the second defendant trespassed on these Items 7 and 8. Thereafter the plaintiff filed O. S. 453 of 1950 against the second defendan...
In Re: Mohanlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR253(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. On the 19th of November, 1970, the inspector of police attached to the P.I.B., C.I.D., Madras, stopped the bus No. MDJ. 4300 near Guindy and arrested one A. K. Ramu on suspicion under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He seized from him Rs. 1,12,000 (currency notes). Ramu, who was sent to court, was remanded to custody. Later, he was released on bail by the court on November 21, 1970. The amount seized was not sent to court. But, on the same day, it was taken away from the police station by the Assistant Director of Inspections (Income-tax Intelligence), under the authority of a warrant issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mohanlal, the present petitioner, filed an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the return of this amount. Observing that the matter does not fall within the purview of Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate dismissed his application. The corr...
V. Govindaswami Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ293
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner's car MDO 6861 was seized by the Central Excise Department at Madras on the 22nd of February, 1971 Diamonds : Jewellery and Ornaments Worth Rs. 1,46,888/- were found in this car. The Collector of Central Excise has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to state as to why the car should not be confiscated Adjudication proceedings are now pending before him. The petitioner applied to the Collector of Central Excise for the return of the car. The latter did not pass any orders on his application. With these allegations the petitioner has filed this application requesting this Court to direct the Collector of Central Excise to release the car to him. The Collector in his counter contends that adjudication proceedings are now pending before him, that no criminal proceedings as such have commenced, that the matter is not before any criminal Court and that as such the petitioner cannot invoke Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code...
T.G. Jagannathan and ors. Vs. the Director of Settlement, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad146
1. These appeals relate to the same subject-matter and arise from an order of Venkatadri, J. The Director of Settlements directed issue of ryotwari patta for a total extent of 16 acres 89 cents comprised in S. Nos. 2/1 to 2/3, but declined such a patta for the land bearing S. No. 2/4 in Iswaravadivelpuram, an inam village. Against the refusal to grant patta, there was a revision to Government which failed. To quash that order, W. P. 606 of 1963 was filed. The writ petition was dismissed by Venkatadri, J., on the view that the land was liable to submersion for not less than three weeks and that it was a tank bed, as found by the Revenue Officers. Against the grant of patta for the rest of the survey numbers, the villagers unsuccessfully moved the Government. The order of the Government is dated 30-10-1962. The villagers not satisfied with that order, would appear to have moved the Government once again, but this time with a different result. That order of Government is dated 25-3-1964. ...
U.C. Misra and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ545
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first petitioner was working as an Assistant Station Master at Moradabad, U.P. during the year 1969. The second petitioner is his father. The third petitioner is his sister's father-in-law. On 9.6.1969 he was on relief duty at Raja-Ka-Sahaspur. On that date a bundle of 25 E.F.T. (Excess fare ticket) books were received at that Station. The first petitioner abstracted two E.F.T. Books bearing Nos. 606251 to 606300 and 606301 to 606350 from that bundle and handed over the remaining books to the Station Master. Subsequently he, under a Second Class Privilege pass travelled from Sambhal Hatim Sarai Railway Station in U.P. to Rameswaram on 16.1.1970. On 22.1.1970 a party of seven persons inclusive of A. 2 and A. 3 boarded in the First Class compartment in Rameshwaram Express on the strength of six E.F.Ts. Nos. 606316 to 606321 to Macharria. These tickets, as stated, were forged as Blank Paper Tickets for Rs. 209-50. On 23.1.1970 this party boarded a First Class C...
Mohammed Sheriff Sahib (Died) and ors. and Aswath Vs. Mumtaz Begum Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ165
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These are two appeals filed by the third and 12th defendants respectively in O.S.No. 538 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. That was a suit filed by one Mumtaz Begum Sahiba, the first respondent in both the appeals for partition of the suit property and for separate possession of her 1/36th share therein as also for mesne profits. The genealogy given below shows the relationship between the parties. Sheriff Ahmed Sahib=Wife, (died 1.1-4-27)... (died 21-8-1910)Sheriff Ameerullah Rahmatunnissa Kubra Begum = Md. Sheriff Sahib (D-3 Khader Mohideen(D-1 died after suit) Begum (D-2 pre-deceased first died 17-9-1968) (Mahboob Sheriff Saheb Sheriff (died | alive wife. B1-A2 (2nd wife) (Died before (before suit) | | | suit Mumtaz Begum | | | | (Plaintiff). _____________________________________ | | | | | | | | | | | | Mumtaz Begum Jeelani Begum Hussain Begum | | | | D-13 (D-14 D-15 | | | | | | | | ___________ _____________________ | | | | | | | | | Tajuddin H...
Nesamma Nadachi Vs. Muthukannu Nadar Paul Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad231; (1973)1MLJ63
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The civil revision petition raises an interesting question of Hindu law on which there is no authoritative decision of this Court. Petitioner Nesama Nadachi is the full sister of the plaintiff in O. S. No. 635 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif padmanabhapuram who died on 17-7-1968. The respondent-Muthukannu Nadar Paul Nadar is the step-brother of the deceased plaintiff and on his application both the petitioner and the respondent were held to be the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and the respondent has been impleaded as the second plaintiff in the suit.2. The question for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether the petitioner-defendant, as the full sister of the deceased plaintiff excludes the respondent step-brother of the deceased plaintiff by virtue of Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act.3. Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act is as follows :--'Heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to he...
Rajagopal Vs. M. Oppilamani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad91
1. The appellant, at the election. President of Keeramangalam Town Panchayat, was elected by 1,348 votes as against 1,191 votes secured by the first respondent. Of the election petition filed by the first respondent, the Tribunal found that the appellant Was guilty of corrupt practices, inasmuch as he has used a taxi, treated voters and prevented canvassing voters supporting the first respondent. This is the finding:Hence I find that R.W. 1 has indulged in corrupt practices alleged in the petition and such practices will no doubt materially affect the election. It is proved by the petitioner that the election has been affected materially by the conduct of the first respondent.The Tribunal accordingly set aside the election. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant failed and he has, therefore, come up in appeal.2. For establishing corrupt practice by use of a taxi, the first respondent had examined himself and two others, one of whom was a taxi owner and the ot...
First Income-tax Officer Vs. Al. Ar. Rm. Ar. Kalaraja Chettiar (Decd.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR268(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. These appeals by the First Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Coimbatore, are from an order of the Abolition Tribunal, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. It appears that AL. AK. RM. N. Arunachalam Chettiar and Diwan Bahadur Somasundaram Chettiar constituted a firm of partnership, which was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1951-52 to 1957-58 and that a sum of Rs. 1,40,200 or so was due as arrears of income-tax. On a notification under Section 3 of Madras Act, XXVI of 1948, the estate in which the two gentlemen were interested was taken over and the compensation in respect thereof stood deposited with the Tribunal. Claims were made under Section 42, which were dealt with and disposed of by the Tribunal. The First Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Coimbatore, applied to the Tribunal for payment out from the compensation a sum of Rs. 1,935.47 in all. But, the applications were disallowed on the ground that they were out of time. 2. We think that the Tribunal took the corr...
Nelleyappan Sastha and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR151(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that arises in this tax case is as to whether the sale value of albezia trees of Rs. 6,080 and the sale value of malavembu trees of Rs. 3,970 are includible as taxable receipts of the assessee along with his other agricultural income. The assessee's contention was that these trees have been specially planted by him only with a view to give shade to the rubber plants and that the object of planting these trees was not with a view to exploit the same by periodical operations of cutting and selling them in the market. The Tribunal has accepted the assessee's case that these trees were grown with the specific purpose of protecting the rubber plants in his plantation. But, however, it has taken the view that the income by way of the sale of these trees, even though they have become useless as shade trees, will still be an agricultural income, assessable to tax under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1930. The Tribunal felt that there can foe no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »