Chennai Court September 1973 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.
R. M. Ar. R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar Alias R.M. A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ221
M. M. Ismail, J.1. A. S. No. 408 of 1967 has been preferred' by the defendant in O.S.No. 50 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. The respondent in that appeal instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,566.16, as per vaddi chittai filed along with the plaint, with subsequent interest. According to him, the appellant and the respondent had an open, mutual and current account between them at Shanmughanathapuram and they carried on the said dealings from 16th April, 1953 to 3rd December, 1953 on which date the amount due by the appellant to the respondent was Rs. 12,000. Under the agreement, interest on the respective amounts had to be calculated and added to the principal at the end of each Tamil year at the prevalent rates of interest. His further case was that the rate of interest at the outset, was at nine annas per centum per mensem, that it was later on increased to ten annas per centum per mensem from 16th April, 1956, that it was 11 ann...
C. Easwaramoorthy Vs. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ137
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This revision petition raises the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of half the Court-fees on the suit having been dismissed as settled out of Court but in which there was originally an ex parte decree which was later set side. There is no direct authority on the point. Section 69 of the Court-fees Act (XIV of 1955) says that:Whenever any suit is dismissed as settled out of Court before any evidence has been recorded on the merits of the claim half the amount of all fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in the suit shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid.In the present case, there was an ex parte decree and that decree was set aside on the defendant's filing an application. Ultimately, the matter was settled out of Court and the suit was dismissed accordingly. The plaintiff applied for refund of half the Court-fee on the footing that Section 6g of the Court-fees Act...
Murugan Vs. Jayarama Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad311
N.S. Ramaswami, J. 1. The only question in this appeal under the Letters Patent is whether the document, Ex. A-1, is a mortgage by conditional sale or whether it I an outright sale, with a right to repurchase. The suit was for redemption by the executants of the document Ex. A-1, on footing that that was a mortgage by conditional sale. The defendant contended that it is an outright sale with a right to repurchase and that the plaintiffs having not exercised their right to repurchase, they have no further remedy. The first two courts held that the document was an outright sale and therefore the plaintiffs were not entitled to redemption. However, on a second appeal filed by the plaintiffs, Venkatadri, J., reversed the finding of the courts below and allowed the appeal, holding that Ex. A-1 is a mortgage by conditional sale. Now, the defendant in the suit has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The terms of Ex. A-1 are that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 3826.50, cons...
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. Vaithi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ406
M. M. Ismail, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 11 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram is the appellant herein. The suit related to a temple known as Sri Panchavatiswaraswami Temple, situate in Ananthandavapuram in Thanjavur district. Exhibit B-I is an extract of the Inam Statement of one Appa Gurukkal dated 16th December, 1861 made before the Inam Commissioner. That statement shows that properties were endowed for Sri Panchavatiswaraswami Temple and that Appa Gurukkal was the person in possession, of the properties and was also the Archaka of the temple. Exhibit A-I is an extract for the Inam Register of Anathandavapuram village. That extract shows, that Appa Gurukkal was the worshipper in possession and the inam itself was confirmed and continued so long as the worship was regularly rendered. Exhibit B-2 is the copy of the inam title deed No. 633 granted to the manager for the time being of the pagoda of Sri Panchavatiswaraswami. Exhibit B-3 dated ...
The Government of Tamil Nadu and ors. Vs. R. Gopalaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad157
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. An order of the State Government, G.O. No. Ms. 486 Rural Development and Local Administration dated 16-3-1973, was quashed by Ramaprasada Rao, J., on the view that it was in direct conflict with the proceedings of the Director of Rural Development who is also an inspector for purposes of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. That order of the Director was dated 28-1-1973 and it said that the Collector of Ramanathapuram reported that the meetings of the Sivakasi Panchayat Union Council scheduled to be held on 1st January, 6th March, 4th May and 3rd June, 1972, were not held as a result the development schemes entrusted to the Panchayat Union could not be carried out on account of the faction in the Council. Thereafter, after giving notice to the Panchayat Union Council under Section 149(1) and being not satisfied with the explanation offered, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 149(2) of the Act, he authorised the Panchayat Union Commissioner, Sivakasi, to pe...
Gomraj Fatehchand and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: [1976]102ITR131(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in the first case is a registered firm carrying on business in camphor, cassia, etc. It carried on its business not only on ready basis but also on forward basis. In respect of its forward contracts, it incurred a loss of Rs. 39,540 for the year 1959-60 and Rs. 7,942 for the year 1960-61. It contended before the Income-tax Officer that the losses were incurred in hedging transactions which fell outside the pale of Explanation 2 to Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that all the forward dealings were hedging in nature as they had been entered into with a view to guard against any loss that might arise due to future price fluctuations. The Income-tax Officer rejected these contentions. He took the view that all the forward transactions were ultimately settled not by actual delivery of the goods but by payment of difference, that the losses have not been incurred in relation to hedging transactions, that the forward sales which w...
S.P. Periaswami Konar and anr. Vs. S. Mikole Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ70
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 8 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, are the appellants herein. Admittedly, the first respondent herein entered into a contract with the Highways Department for the construction of Kodaikanal Moonar Road. After having taken this contract, he entered into a partnership with the appellant and the second respondent for the purpose of carrying out the contract taken by him from the Highways Department. The terms of the partnership were reduced to writing under Exhibit A-1 dated 18th May, 1955. Even though the partnership agreement was reduced to writing on 18th May, 1955, the said document itself provided that the partnership must be deemed to have come into existence on 25th January, 1955. According to the agreement between the parties, each one of the partners was to contribute a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards the capital of the partnership business and they had to divide the profits or losses equally as betwe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›