Chennai Court October 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 4 of about 38 results (0.016 seconds)S.V.R.B.K.R. Gopalan Vs. the Estates Abolition Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ182
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for the records in A.S. No. 130 of 1955, on the file of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, and to quash the order therein.2. The Inam village of Vikramam in the Tanjore District was notified by the Government under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948; the estate was taken over by the Government on 1st October, 1951. The petitioner, who had purchased the share of one of the erstwhile inamdars, filed an application, under Section 13 of the Act, before the Assistant Settlement Officer, for the grant of ryotwari patta in respect of 52 items of land in the village. The Officer granted him patta for 46 items, but declined to do so for the remaining six. From the order of the officer, there was an appeal by the petitioner to the respondent, the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, in respect of two of the items, namely, items 4...
Tag this Judgment!V. Baluswami Naidu and Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]11STC231(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This batch of 13 writ petitions have been filed by several dealers in hides and skins questioning the levy of sales tax on their transactions for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58. Some of them seek the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the assessing authority not to proceed with the assessment, whereas in the case of others (save W.P. No. 500 of 1958), the relief sought is the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment. W.P. No. 500 of 1958 seeks the issue of a writ of prohibition directing the assessing authority not to proceed further with the contemplated assessment. The basis on which the reliefs are sought is however identical. The dealers involved in these petitions have not taken out licences and on the provisions and the rules as they stood until the recent amendment to which I shall presently advert, unlicensed dealers in untanned hides and skins were held not liable to pay tax on their turnover. The sales tax on hides ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.C. Menon Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad333; (1960)IILLJ424Mad
(1) The petitioner was formerly an Inspector employed in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. His services having been terminated by the Divisional Manager of this Corporation, he has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this order of termination.(2) Before the Life Insurance Corporation was set up by Act of Parliament, the petitioner was a Branch Manager in an insurance concern, known as Geeneral Assurance Society. He was in charge of the Coimbatore branch of this society and was drawing a salary of Rs. 575 a month. With the coming into force of the Life Insurance Corporation by Act 36 of 1956, the business of the General Assurance Society was taken over by the Government and vested in the Corporation and the petitioner became an employee of the Corporation.By an order dated 16-8-1956, the petitioner was appointed as the Inspector at the Coimbatore branch office of the Corporation. By a notice served on him on 13-7-1957 by the respondent, the Di...
Tag this Judgment!B. Hariharamuthu Pillai Vs. Rani Subbulakshmi Nachiar, Hereditary Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ232
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Rani Subbalakshmi Nachiar, claiming to be the hereditary trustee of certain kattalais attached to some temples in what was formerly the Zamindari of Urkad, filed several suits in the Court of the District Muhsiff of Ambasamudram, to recover what she claimed were arrears of rent from the defendants. According to her, the kattalais which she represented are entitled to full rights in the suit lands, that is to say, both to the melvaram and to the kudivaram. The defendants, in their turn, pleaded that they are entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in the lands. The following questions, therefore, arose for the determination.(1) Whether the plaint schedule lands and other lands form a part of the estate of the Zamindari of Urkad which has been notified and taken over by Government under the Abolition Act?(2) Whether they are not minor inam lands?(3) Whether the defendants had acquired permanent occupancy rights in the suit lands?(4) Whether the lands have a...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Kothandapani Mudaliar Vs. the Area Committee, H.R. and C.E. for M ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ176
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The order impugned in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari is that of the Area Committee, Madras City and Chingleput District. The temple in question is the Elavapuriswarar temple situated at Vilangadupakkam village in Saidapet Taluk. The petitioner was hereditary trustee of this temple. It is stated that complaints were received about the maladministration of the temple and its affairs by the petitioner, and a notice was issued to him on 5th August, 1957, by which the petitioner was called on to show cause why non-hereditary trustees should not be appointed for the proper management of the temple. The petitioner showed cause and submitted his explanation. Thereafter the Area Committee passed on 26th August, 1957, a resolution appointing respondents 2 and 3 as the non-hereditary trustees of this institution. It is the validity of this resolution and this order of appointment of non-hereditary trustees that is challenged in this petition.2. ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Nanja Raja and anr. Vs. Lalitha Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ415
ORDER1. This is a petition for review of the judgment we rendered in S.T.A. No. 137 of 1954. In view of the points urged in this application for review, it is necessary briefly to set out the point which arose for decision in S.T.A. No. 137 of 1954 and the details of our judgment in that appeal.2. Berikai was an impartible estate which was notified and taken over by Government under the Madras Estates Abolition Act (Act XXVI of 1948). The present petitioners are the legal representatives of one Veerabadra Rao, who obtained a decree for arrears of maintenance against the then Berikai Zamindar. The decree was passed in O.S. No. 59 of 1945 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, on 18th September, 1945, and thereafter the judgment-debtor died. He was succeeded in the estate by his son who also died before these proceedings began, leaving a minor son, Basava Raja. After the Berikai Zamin was notified and taken over, the Government deposited interim compensation, and the present petitioners, w...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gopal Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ187
ORDER1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and the Deputy Commissioner, Tanjore and to quash their orders by which a lease granted in favour of the petitioner by the trustee of the Swayambunathaswami temple was cancelled.2. It is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner. The 3rd Respondent in this petition, the Pandarasannathi of the Dharmapuram Adhinam is the hereditary trustee of the abovesaid Swayambunathaswami temple at Peralam. The present petition is concerned with a lease effected by the trustee, of an extent of 275.96 acres of nanja and 22.28 acres of punja, in favour of the petitioner on an annual rental of 2,900 kalams of paddy, Rs. 300 in cash, 500 coconuts, 500 coconut palm leaves, 400 bundles of straw, 5 kalams of blackgram and. 5 kalams of green gram. The term of the lease was 5 years and the lease was granted on 14th June, 1...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chinniah Servai Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ191
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other suitable writ or order or directions in the nature of writ to quash the proceedings of the State of Madras culminating in their order G.O. Ms. No. 2621, Home, dated 17th September, 1958. In and by that order the Government, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, exempted premises No. 15, Coral Merchant Street, George Town, Madras, from the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act.2. The facts which led up to this petition are as follows : The second respondent in the petition, one Rajathi Animal, purchased premises Nos. 14 and 15, Coral Merchant Street for a sum of about Rs. 23,000 by a deed of sale, dated 12th March, 1955. Of these two, No. 14 appears to be a cowshed and we are not concerned with it in this petition. No. 15 was in the occupation of the petitioner, Chinnia...
Tag this Judgment!