Chennai Court January 1963 Judgments
A.N. Marudachalam Chettiar Vs. S.A. Veera Boyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad9
Anantanarayanan, J.1. In this appeal by the first defendant, the primary question involved is one of limitation. In order to appreciate the background against which that issue arises, the following facts are essential.2. The second defendant executed a simple mortgage with regard to certain properties in favour of the first defendant (appellant) for a sum of Rs. 4500 on 26-3-1930. The suit of the first defendant (O.S. No. 213 of 1945) was instituted to enforce that mortgage not merely against the mortgagor, but also two others who claimed to be irepossession of the suit properties under an independent title. The preliminary mortgage decree exonerated those two persons. The matter came up to this Court in appeal in A. S. No. 125 of 194T before Satyanarayana Rao and Chandra Reddi, JJ. and the following passage from that judgment of' the Bench is of some interest upon the history of the title.It appears that Ramaswami's wife, after death of Ramaswami, instituted a suit in which it was. de...
Tag this Judgment!The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd., Suing by their Secretary, Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ213
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal from the Judgment and decree of the learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. No. 796 of 1958; raises a question regarding the application of the provisions of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, as amended by Madras Act XIX of 1955.2. The plaintiffs, the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd., represented by their Secretary, own the vacant land bearing No. 4/7, Ponnambala Vathiar Street, Mylapore, Madras. The defendant is a paper merchant and printer. A lease deed, Exhibit A-1, was executed between the parties on 30th April, 1947, in respect of the above-mentioned vacant land, for a period of 10 years commencing from 1st May, 1947. During the continuance of the above lease, in accordance with the stipulation made in the lease deed, the defendant put up a building on the land. The plaintiffs alleged that, under the terms of the lease deed, the defendant was to surrender possession of the land with the superstructure ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Gnanasundara Nayagar Vs. Berton Export Co. a Firm of Export Merchan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad113
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appeal has been instituted by the plaintiff in the Court below who sued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,064, with further interest at six per cent and for certain allied reliefs of the character of godown charges, from the first defendant-firm (Berton Export Co.), situated in the United States, and the second defendant-firm, alleged to be the agent at Madras. The broad facts are not in dispute, and the main question is whether the second defendant firm is the Madras agent of the first defendant-firm, name for damages for breach of contract claimed, Under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act. The related equally important question is whether cl. 26 of the terms of the indent (Ex. A-5) constitutes a special exemption exonerating the agent from all liabilities.2. It is not necessary to proceed into all the particulars of the evidence. We may very briefly state that the order was in respect of cold rolled black steel sheets, designated by the code word Dolpa. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Joint Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad477; [1963]14STC600(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. These two petitions, in which the petitioner is the same, raise an interesting question as to whether electricity, is 'goods' for the purpose of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. There appears to be no direct authority on the question, but I have come to the conclusion that the question should be answered in the affirmative. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. It purchases electricity and distributes it to its local consumers within a specified area. For the purpose of distributing electricity, the petitioner has also to purchase certain goods from out of the State dealers paying tax under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. After Section 8(3) of the Central Act was amended with effect from 1958, the petitioner obtained a certificate of registration Under Section 7(2) of that Act, which would secure the benefit of Section 8(1)(b) to the sales of goods effected by the ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Rangarajulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Madura Srinivasa Mills Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad409; [1963]33CompCas453(Mad); (1963)1MLJ276
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is filed under Section 483 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, by certain share-holders of the Madura Srinivasa Mills Ltd., now under liquidation, concerns the correctness of the order passed by the District Judge at Madurai, rejecting an application for review of an earlier order confirming a sale held by the Official Liquidator and for certain other reliefs. The properties Sold consisted of 24-20 acres of land belonging in absolute right to the company of another 2-30 acres of land together with certain buildings thereon over which it had only a mortgage right, and a leasehold right in a small extent of lands. The company was directed to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 26th September 1955. By the same order, further proceedings in winding up ot the company were transferred to the District Court at Madurai. The Official Receiver, Madurai, who was later appointed Official Liquidator, was given a direction by the District Court to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Pachayyappa Mudaliar Vs. S.S. Motor Service (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad130
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is to prohibit the fifth respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, from issuing temporary permits to each of the rest of the respondents on the route Tindivanam to Uppuvelur, via Brahmadesam. It is not in dispute that four temporary permits were first issued in January 1962 on the route. Temporary permits were again issued in May and September 1962. It is also not denied that similar permits have been issued in January 1963 too, though the temporary permit issued to the fourth respondent is for a different route, part of which lies on the route Tindivanam to Uppuvelur. Prohibition is asked for on the ground that such successive grants of permits is an abuse of power Under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The contention on behalf of the petitioner certainly appears to have force. It is true that where a power is granted, it is not exhausted by repeated exercise of it. But the power under Section 62 has its limitations. That sec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kumaraswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1963
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ390
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Kumaraswami Naicker was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai in S.C. No. 108 of 1961 for the offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He appeals from the conviction and sentence.2. The facts of the prosecution case are brief. The deceased Velammal was the wife of the accused. She and her mother, who hailed from a village called Vellappottal, had come to Rajapalayam. The accused belongs to Rajapalayam. At Rajapalayam, Velammal contracted illicit intimacy with P.W. 8 (Pandi alias Subbiah) before her marriage to the accused. After the marriage, the accused and Velammal stayed for about a year at Rajapalayam doing ghee business. Then he and Velammal went to Vellappottal where they stayed for some time. Velammal fell ill of typhoid and then returned to Rajapalayam for treatment. There she again came in contact with Pandi P.W. 8 and they were living together for about three mont...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Bank Ltd. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1963Mad471; [1963(7)FLR70]; (1963)IILLJ195Mad; (1963)2MLJ6
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C. J.1. This appeal filed under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment of Ramakrishnan, J. who declined to issue a writ of prohibition which was sought for restraining the Industrial Tribunal at Madras from proceeding with a reference made by the Government of India under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act concerning the quantum of bonus payable by the appellant bank to its employees for the year 1957.2. The facts leading upto the reference are these. The employees of the India Bank Ltd. being dissatisfied with the response of the Management to their demand for bonus for the year 1957 went on strike. Negotiations for calling off the strike ensued and as a result of an agreement come to between the parties the Government of India was approached by the appellant bank as well as its employees to refer the following question for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal at Madras :'What should be the quantum of bonus payable to the workmen for ...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. David Vs. M. Thiagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1966Mad89
ORDER1. These revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Indian Lunacy Act 1922, before the District Court, Salem. The petitioner is the same in both the petitions. The first respondent in C.R.P. 1634 of 1962 is one Thiagarajan and it will be convenient to refer to him as the respondent in this judgment. Respondents 2 and 3 in C.R.P. 1634 of 1962 are the managers appointed under the lunacy proceedings in respect of the estate of the lunatic. They are the only respondents in C.R.P. 1635 of 1962. They can be conveniently referred to in this judgment as the managers. The first respondent (Thiagarajan) in C.R.P. 1634 of 1962 is not a party to C.R.P. 1635 of 1962. C.R.P. 1634 of 1962 is directed against the order of the District Court in I.A. 401 of 1962 granting permission to the managers to sell an item of immoveable property, belonging partly to the lunatic, to Thiagarajan. C.R.P. 1635 of 1962 is against the order of the District Court in I.A. 402 of 1962 rejecting the prayer ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re, Anthony Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1963
Reported in: 1963CriLJ224; (1963)IMLJ393
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. This is a petition to restore Crl. R. C. No. 151 of 1961 which I dismissed on 23-11-1962 on merits, after perusing the records and after hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor. The Criminal revision petition was adjourned several times at the request of the advocate for the petitioners. When the petition came up for hearing on 22-11-1962, I adjourned it to the next day as the petitioners and their advocate were absent. But even on the next day the petitioners and their advocate were absent, and I dismissed the case on merits. It is mentioned In this petition that the advocate for the petitioners took several adjournments in this old case on account of III health and that he finally entrusted the papers to another advocate, Sri N. S. Sarma, who, however, could not conduct the case as he was taken into custody udder the Defence of India 'Act on 21st November 1962. Assuming the facts stated in the petition are true, the question for consideration in this petit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »