Chennai Court May 1960 Judgments
Munavar Basha and anr. Vs. V. Narayanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad200
Jagadisan, J.1. One Halima Bi was the owner of the premises bearing old door No. 110-E, New door No. 110-F, Mount Road, Madras. The premises was in the occupation of her tenant, one V. S. Narayanan who will hereinafter be referred to as the tenant on a rental of Rs. 500 per month. He defaulted to pay the rent for the months of March, April and May 1956. Halima Bi filed on 29-6-1959. H. R. C. No. 2380 of 1956 before the House Rent Controller, Madras under Section 7(2)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the matter of payment of rent for the aforesaid three months.The tenant admitted non-payment of the rent for the said period; he however pleaded that he had adjusted the rent towards the cost of repairs and white-washing done to the premises as per the alleged agreement between him and Halima Bi. The Additional Rent Controller, Madras, found that the tenant was guilty of wilful ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd., Madras Vs. Industrial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad362; [1961(2)FLR8]; (1961)1MLJ100
1. This is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners, the Management of Express Newspapers Private Ltd. Madras pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in Petition No. 60 of 1958 in I. D. No. 32 of 1937 dated 25th September 1958.2. The petitioners which are a concern printing and publishing newspapers, had employed in its staff U. Dorajraj, the second respondent herein, as an attender in its Editorial section, of the "Indian Express", Madras. On 21st July 1958, the second respondent, the employee attended office in the morning at 9 a. m. as usual and reported himself before the time keeper for duty and offered his card for punching. He was then informed that T. Gopal, the altender who was to do the night duty that day had taken sick leave on production of medical certificate, and that he should report himself to duty that day for the night shift.The ca...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaraja Iyengar Vs. Petha Ponnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad211; (1961)1MLJ383
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The appellant was the defendant in an original suit filed before the learned District Munsif of Sankaridurg at Salem for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600 as damages for false and malicious prosecution. The plaint averments, with which alone we need be concerned for the disposal of the appeal, were as follows. The defendant (appellant) was the President of the Pettipuram Panchayat Court, and this Court launched a prosecution of the plaintiff (respondent) for an alleged offence committed in respect of a judicial proceeding before it under Section 174, I. P. C.It is not in dispute that the Panchayat Court passed a resolution that the plaintiff (respondent)should be so prosecuted, for alleged deliberate failure to appear in that Court notwithstanding service of summons, and that the appellant filed that criminal complaint purely in his capacity as the President of the Court, which was the real complainant. The crim...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Khalilur Rahaman Sahib Vs. S.H. Syed Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad220; (1960)2MLJ479
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This civil revision petition originally came up for hearing before Ramachandra Iyer, J., who considered that the case may be posted before a Division Bench in view of the conflict between the decisions in Rama Madali v. Marappa Goundan : AIR1934Mad638 and Palanisami Gounder v. Kaliappa Gounder, 50 Mad L.W. 640: (A.I.R. 1940 Mad 77). 2. This petition arises out of an application under Section 95, C.P.C., for the award, of compensation for attachment on insufficient grounds. It is sufficient to state the following facts. The petitioner before us filed a suit, O. S. No. 385 of 1954, in the Court of the District Munsif, Vellore, against the respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 1260-2-0. Along with the suit he also filed I. A, No. 1245 of 1954. for attachment before judgment of the respondent's residential house at Guddiyattam on 16-12-1954. An interim order of attachment was passed and the property was actually attached on 17-12-1954. On 12-1-1955 time till 19-1-1955...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Late Sri Vr.Rm.S. Ghockalingam Chettiar by S.Vr. Veerappa Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ577
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This reference relates to the assessment of the estate of one VR. RM.S. Chockalingam Chettiar represented by S.VR. Veerappa Chettiar and S.V. Viswanathan Chettiar for the year 1951-52, the previous year ending with 13th April, 1951. Chockalingam Chettiar and his two sons, Veerappa Chettiar and Viswanathan Chettiar, were living as members of a joint family. Chockalinga acquired substantial properties in Johore Bahru in Malaya. On the 3rd February, 1949, he executed a will in respect of his properties at Johore Bahru, in accordance with the law of that country. Shortly thereafter, that is, on 18th April, 1949, Chockalinga died, leaving behind him his two sons and a daughter, Meenakshi. Veerappa and Viswanatha were appointed as the executors and trustees under the will, and they were directed to pay Meenakshi a sum of Rs. 20,000 within two years of the death of the testator : in default Meenakshi was to obtain by way of a legacy a property, a building in the townshi...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Vr. Rm. S. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1960
Reported in: [1960]40ITR429(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER, J. - This reference relates to the assessment of the Estate of one VR. RM. S. Chockalingam Chettiar represented by S. VR. Veerappa Chettiar and S. V. Vishwanathan Chettiar for the year 1951-52, the previous year ending with April 13, 1951. Chockalingam Chettiar and his two sons, Veerappa Chettiar and Viswanathan Chettiar were living as members of a joint family. Chockalinga acquired substantial properties in Johore Bahru in Malaya. On February 3, 1949, he executed a will in respect of his properties at Johore Bahru, in accordance with the law of that country. Shortly thereafter, that is, on April 18, 1949, Chockalinga died, leaving behind him his two sons and a daughter, Meenakshi. Veerappa and Viswanathan were appointed as the executors and trustees under the will, and they were directed to adopt a Meenakshi a sum of Rs. 20,000 within two years of the death of the tester; in default of Meenakshi was to obtain by way of a legacy a property, building in the township of...
Tag this Judgment!E. Rajagopalan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Sina Ana Ishack Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ495
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal raises the question, whether the provisions of Section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act IV of 1938) could be applied to the claim by a mortgagee-creditor to be paid out of the compensation amount deposited in respect of an estate taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 (Abolition Act).2. The inam estate of Kusavarungulam was notified and taken over by the Government on 3rd January, 1951, and an advance compensation of Rs. 11,031 was deposited with the Tribunal. The appellants, claiming under an Qthi executed on 2nd November, 1941, in favour of one Nambi Narayana Chettiar by the 1st Respondent in respect of i/3rd share in the inam estate, applied for payment out of the sum reserved under the mortgage, namely, Rs. 3,500. The 1st Respondent also applied for payment of his 1 /3rd share in the compensation amount less what was payable to the mortgagee. He claimed that he was an agriculturist, enti...
Tag this Judgment!Thulasi Vs. Ammayappa Pilial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ564
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., disposing of two connected Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 355 and 356 of 1952. It is sufficient to mention the following facts for disposal of these two appeals.2. The first respondent, claiming to be the reversioner to the estate of one Subbanna Pillai, filed a suit O.S. No. 1 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, for recovery of possession of several items of properties from several alienees who were in possession of particular properties on the ground that the alienations were not binding on him. The appellant before us was an alienee of two sets of properties under two usufructuary mortgages for Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively. The alienee, inter alia pleaded that the first respondent was not the reversioner. They also contended that the respective alienations in their favour were binding on him.3. The learned Subordinate Judge ofThanjavur in his judgment dated 6th A...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Krishnier Vs. A.R. Ramchandra Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad197
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in the lower court, who was the assignee from the 39th creditor in certain proceedings under the Debt Conciliation Act, and who filed an execution petition for sale of properties. The petition was dismissed upon the main ground that it was barred by limitation. The actual question involved turns upon the interpretation and application of Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act to the facts of this case. The broad facts which are required for our present purpose are as follows : During the pendency of certain proceedings under the Debt Conciliation Act, an agreement was reached with regard to a sum of money payable to the appellant's predecessor-in-interest, the creditor upon a charge of certain properties. This assignment was registered in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Debt Conciliation Act, and the petitioner in the lower court (appellant) is an assignee from the creditor, the assignment in his favour having been recognised...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagnana thevar Vs. Udayar thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad356
Veeraswami, J.1. The plaintiff who failed in both the courts below has appealed to this court. He brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint first schedule properties from the defendant with future mesne profits. The properties originally belonged to one Pooli Sivasuhramania Thevar of Nelkattumsevel. On 8-9-1923, he executed a deed of settlement whereby he gave a life interest in the suit properties to Sivagnanathammal whom lie proposed at the time and later on married as his second wife, the remainder to his sons, if any, to be bom to her, failing which to his son by his first wife by name Pooli Sivagnanapandian and his heirs. Sivagnanathammal died in 1950 issueless and her husband Pooli Sivasubramania Thevar had predecesecl her. The plaintiff purchased the property under a sale deed dated 2-5-1952 from Vellathurai Pandian the son of Pooli Sivagnanapandian. The plaintiffs case was that after the termination of the life estate on the death of Sivagnanathammal, Vellathura...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »