Chennai Court January 1966 Judgments
Rajathi Vs. K. Selliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ40
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the-Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent.2. The respondent resisted the petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that there was no legal or valid marriage between them. Therefore the only question that arose in the Courts below was whether there was a valid marriage between the spouses in question. Evidence was adduced to describe the nature of the ceremonies by the persons who attended the marriage and. conducted the ceremony. E.V. Ramasami Naicker, who is popularly known as 'Periyar', deposed that before the actual marriage was celebrated, it was advertised in his paper,' Viduthalai' that the marriage would be taking place on 2nd November, 1958 at Tiruchirappalli. The actual ceremony was conducted by him and in his presence. The parties were seated on a platform before a Ku...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Natesan Pillai Vs. Rathnam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ82
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The question that arises in this second appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time. The promissory note on which the suit was filed is Exhibit A-1, dated 3rd September, 1947, executed by the defendants in favour of the Tiruchirapalli Merchants' Chit and Investment Co., Ltd., for Rs. 2,400. The promissory note was executed as a security for the amount received by the defendants in chit auction held by the said company. The defendants were the successful bidders in one auction, and on receipt of the amount they executed a varthamanam. Exhibit A-2, along with the promissory note, Exhibit A-1, on the same date. According to the varthamanam, the sum of Rs. 2,400 was to be paid in eight monthly instalments of Rs. 300 each, the first instalment being payable on 2nd October, 1946 An endorsement of payment of Rs. 5 towards principal and interest was made by both the defendants on 2nd December, 1950, on the promissory note, Exhibit A-1. The promissory...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Mudaliar Vs. Annamalai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ223
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit is one for damages of Rs. 500 against the defendant for having defamed the plaintiff by writing the letter Exhibit A-I, dated 5th May, 1958 and publishing it The Courts below find that the matter complained of is highly defamatory to the plaintiff, but that there has been no publication and it is on the latter ground that the suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif and the dismissal was confirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal. The contention of the appellant's learned Counsel Sri Jagadisa Iyer before me is that there has been publication. That is a question of fact and no reasons have been shown to justify interference under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, with that finding.2. The facts necessary for our purpose may be briefly stated. The plaintiff was a co-trustee of two temples along with the defendant and was directed to hand over charge of the articles to the defendant o...
Tag this Judgment!Bathool Bai Vs. A.S. Vaidyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ412
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the landlady whose application for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that she required the premises bona fide for her own occupation was dismissed by the appellate authority.2. The landlady let out the suit premises to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 80 from 1941. It is common ground that the respondent is a doctor by profession and is also incidentally carrying on business in a portion of the premises known as Scientific Pharmacy. It is also common ground that the premises was let out to the respondent only for residential purposes. The landlady has been attempting for some years to get possession of the premises by filing applications for eviction of the tenant but she has not been successful. The landlady was originally living in a rented premises in Royapettah. As her only daughter was at Bombay she vacated the rented premises and went to Bombay in order to undergo a major surgical operation in Bombay....
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. K.R. Subbaier Tape Factor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ403
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These appeals are directed respectively against the judgment of Jagadisan, J. in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959 and Veeraswrami, J., in Writ Petition No. 619 of 1959, petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. They were heard together since common questions have arisen in them for decision.2. In the first case, the petitioner firm ran a factory, from 1942, for manufacturing tapes, lampwicks, etc., with more than 50 persons in its employ. At an anterior stage, the firm disputed the fact that the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (XIX of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act) would apply to the firm, and the questions was settled only when the Central Government passed an order on 29th September, 1958, under Section 19-A of the Act holding that the Act applied. This decisions was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959, but Jagadisan, J., held the point against the petitioner. It is now not in dispute that the Petitioner's concer...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Mohamed Ali Vs. R. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad441; 1966CriLJ1453
ORDER(1) Petitioner M. A. Mohamed Ali has been convicted under S. 448 I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default simple imprisonment for two months, and an order under S. 522 Crl.P.C. Has also been passed directing restoration of possession of the bungalow occupied by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant. The complainant's case was that he had leased his bungalow No. 117, Scheme Road, Mahalingapuram, Nungambakkam, to P.W. 2 M. G. Menon on 5-6-1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 350, that P.W. 2 M. G. Menon intimated on 14-6-1965 that he wanted to vacate the bungalow as he was ill and actually vacated the bungalow on 20-6-1965 and that the petitioner who was allowed to remain in a portion of the bungalow as a guest refused to vacate the bungalow. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner was that he occupied the bungalow only as a tenant under the complainant and that he allowed P.W. 2 to remain as a guest in a portion of the bungalow. The petitioner has examined hi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Manavala Chetty and Five ors. Vs. P. Ramanujam Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1966
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ127
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiffs have instituted this proceeding for the construction of the will of the late Narayana Guruviah Chetty, dated 12th October, 1915, marked as Exhibit P-1, by which amongst other things the testator had created certain religious and charitable endowments, and the point on which the decision of this Court is sought relates to the question whether house and ground bearing Municipal door No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street (more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint) still forms part of the trust estate as being covered by the terms of the will.2. Late Narayana Guruviah Chetty amassed large properties as his self-acquisitions by his own exertions and the trade that he was carrying on. His wife was one Narayana Ethirajamma and they had no issues. Guruviah Chetty had adopted a son who predeceased the adoptive father, leaving a widow. The will left behind by Guruviah Chetty was a detailed and an elaborate one prepared under the instructions ...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industries Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad102
1. This revision has been preferred by the Trustees of the Port of Madras, defendants in a suit for the recovery of damages for short delivery of goods. It is a finding of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, not open to challenge in revision, that the goods had been landed and the defendants are liable in damages for the sum of Rs. 940 claimed.2. The learned Counsel Mr. V.V. Raghavan appearing for the petitioners contends that the suit should not have been entertained at all by the Court below as it was barred under Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plaintiffs had been given the C certificate on 2nd July, 1958, and on that date, the cause of action for the suit arose. The suit has been actually filed on 22nd January, 1959. Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act provides:No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced against any person for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act without giving to such person one month's previous...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Simpson and Co. Ltd., Madras and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad194
ORDER(1) This revision petition arises out of a small cause suit instituted by the first and second respondents for the recovery of Rs. 550-76 on account of non-delivery of one case of goods by the petitioner out of 11 cases consigned to the first respondent through the third respondent steamship company. It is common ground that the petitioner the Port Trust of Madras, received the 11 cases of goods but did not deliver one case complained of by the first respondent. The second respondent-second plaintiff, with whom the goods had been insured had paid the claim amount and had become subrogated to the rights of the first respondent-first plaintiff. The suit was therefore filed by both the first and second respondents. The third respondent, Steamship Co., contended that the suit was not maintainable as against it inasmush as the particular consignment landed from the vessel had been taken delivery of by the petitioner-Port Trust, who also issued the tally receipt. The petitioner, Port Tr...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ162
M. Natesan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the Trustees of the Port of Madras, defendants in a suit for the recovery of damages for short delivery of goods. It is a finding of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, not open to challenge in revision, that the goods had been landed and the defendants are liable in damages for the sum of Rs. 940 claimed.2. The learned Counsel Mr. V.V. Raghavan appearing for the petitioners contends that the suit should not have been entertained at all by the Court below as it was barred under Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plaintiffs had been given the C certificate on 2nd July, 1958, and on that date, the cause of action for the suit arose. The suit has been actually filed on 22nd January, 1959. Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act provides:No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced against any person for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act without giving to such person one mo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »