Chennai Court December 1966 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.
Sarangapani Chetty Vs. Perumal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ386
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the appellant before Venkatadri, J., in Appeal against Order No. 322 of 1961. As the learned Judge himself states, the proceeding involves a question of some interest, whether a particular ground of the insolvency enacted in Section 6, Sub-section (d)(ii) and (iii) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, can be availed of by the sole creditor of the alleged insolvent. For the purpose of this argument which is the single ground involved in the appeal, the following facts will be sufficient.2. The respondent (creditor) has a decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 153 of 1958, District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi. The respondent attempted to realise the decree amount by means of four separate execution petitions, but was unsuccessful. According to the respondent, the insolvent (appellant) departed from his dwelling-house and usual place of business, and so secluded himself, that the repeated attempts at executing th...
K.R. Saraswathi Vs. V. Vadivelu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ81
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner before me is the landlady. This petition arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner filed an application for possession of her premises on the ground that the same was required for the business carried on by her husband. The respondent-tenant contended originally that he was not the tenant, that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that in any event the application was not maintainable as the premises was only required by the landlady's husband. In the appeal before the Court of Small Causes, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not canvassed. Both the Rent Controller and the Court of Small Causes held that the petitioner required the premises bona fide for use and occupation. The Rent Controller however held, on the question of maintainability, that the petition was maintainable by the landlady though the premises was required by her husband. But, on this question, the learned C...
A.V. Nataraja Konar Vs. Poovalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ369
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in the lower Court. He filed an application under Order 26, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the issue of a commission to examine three witnesses said to be residing in Burma and over whom he has no control. Several contentions were raised by the defendant against the suit claim. I am not at present dealing with the same. The application was, however, opposed by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the discretion of Court ought not to be exercised in favour of the petitioner as the application is merely a ruse to protract the trial of the suit. The learned District Munsif dismissed the application mainly on the ground that he has the discretion to issue a commission having regard to the inconvenience and hardship that it will enure to the other side. As against this order, the present revision petition is filed.2. The learned District Munsif in the opening portion of the effective part of his judgme...
K. Abdulla Vs. Labour Officer, Ii, Madras (Appellate Authority) and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ443
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed against the order of the Labour Court, II, Madras, the appellate authority, in which that authority directed the petitioner the proprietor of the Janatha Coffee Centre, Mount Road, Madras, to pay a sum of Rs. 150 to one Chandrasekaran in lieu of an order for reinstatement, on the ground, that the petitioner had dismissed him from employment without reasonable cause. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and they can be briefly put down.2. The petitioner alleged that the employee, Chandrasekaran, behaved rudely to him and assaulted him when the employee's conduct towards a customer was questioned by the petitioner. The petitioner went so far as to say that the said Chandrasekaran kicked him in the back and ran away. Thereafter the petitioner terminated the services of Chandrasekaran for misconduct but did not hold a formal enquiry for that purpose. Section 19(1) of the Madras Catering Establishments Act, 1958, provides:No emplo...
S. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. R.M.M.A. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad103
1. The appellant brought the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of Rs. 13,118-75 due on a promissory note, inclusive of interest, to AL. VR. ST. Estates, Devakottai. The appellant was appointed Receiver by this court on 30-9-1959, pending disposal of A. S. 223 of 1959. The promissory note was admittedly executed by the first respondent on 5-7-1946 for a sum of Rs. 10,000, borrowed from the Estate at its Madurai Branch. On 1-7-1949, there was a payment of Rs.250. On 14-6-1952, there was a further payment of Rs. 2000 by bank draft sent by the first respondent from Ipoh with a covering letter. The suit was instituted on 3-9-1960. By an amendment of the plaint, another payment of Rs. 1000, by a similar draft from the first respondent from Ipoh dated 21-6-1955 was set up. It was specifically asserted in the plaint that this sum was received in part payment of the debt. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the amendment. But, there he merely mentioned that...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madras Vs. M. Bal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ536
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The appeal is by the Government, from the Judgment of Venkatadri, J., in Appeal Suit No. 267 of 1961, which related to a short matter of the proper valuation of an extent of 1,591 square feet bearing Door No. 2/31,. Xavier Street, Madras City, acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Admittedly the Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,378.90 P. for the value of the land and the building (small tiled house) situate thereon, including the 15 per cent. solatium.2. There was a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and, upon this reference the learned Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, increased the compensation to Rs. 6,750. Appeals were preferred, both by the claimant and by the State, from this judgment and decree, and the matter came up before our learned brother (Venkatadri, J.) with reference to the proper basis of the determination of compensation, where small areas of this kind, situate in the city, are ac...
A. Abdul Karim Sahib Vs. A. Shanmugha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ468
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner before me is the plaintiff in the lower Court. The plaintiff instituted a suit on the ground that the defendant is passing off his trade mark and in particular asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing the goods under a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. The suit was instituted on 24th September, 1962. Two days after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff secured registration of his trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, and after obtaining such rights and before the case was taken up for trial, he filed I.A. No. 62 of 1965 in O.S. No. 3 of 1962 on the file of the District Judge of North Arcot for amending the plaint incorporating therein two paragraphs which are extracted in the petition. One of those paragraphs really sets out the fact that the petitioner has secured registration of the trade mark under consideration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 195...
Marudanayagam Pillai Vs. P.K. Venkataswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad433
1. This second appeal is by the first defendant in a suit for setting aside an earlier decree in a mortgage suit. O. S. NO. 634 of 1943 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli for a declaration that the court sale therein is not valid and binding on the plaintiff and for restraining defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and their men and agents from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and his lessee, the third of the suit A schedule property in the possession of the plaintiff and his lessee, the third defendant in the suit, and for other reliefs. There has been no appearance before me for the legal representatives of the plaintiff, the plaintiff dying pendente lite. As the record revealed that there has been not contest between the parties, at the instance of the court, Sri S.V. Jayaraman, advocate, has appeared amicus curiae to represent the case for the contesting respondents.2. The earlier suit O. S. No. 634 of 1943 was instituted by the present appell...
P. Sivasankarasubramania Pillai and ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad171
(1) The above cases have been directed by the learned Chief Justice to be posted before this Full Bench as Kailasam, J. and Venkatadri, J. (sitting singly) before whom these cases came, took the view that there is a conflict between two Full Bench decisions of this Court Chittayya v. Secretary of State. ILR 55 Mad 453: (AIR 1932 Mad 377) (FB) and Nagarathnammal v. Ibrahim Sahib, (FB).(2) W. P. 1027 of 63 arises out of proceedings under the Madras Hereditary Village Officers Act, Madras Act III of 1895. The question raised is whether the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to modify the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the course of the Disciplinary proceedings against a village headman W.P. Nos. 1225 of 63 and 424 of 64 arises out of proceedings under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, Act II of 1864 and the question raised is whether after the confirmation of a revenue sale by the Deputy Collector the District Revenue Officer has jurisdiction to set it aside unde...
S. Doraiswami Mudaliar Vs. Balasubramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad94
ORDER(1) This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee of the Uthukottai Co-operative Supervising Union (Chingleput) for the election of a director to the Kancheepuram Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., Kancheepuram, dated 24-12-1965 and to quash the said proceedings.(2) The petitioner is a member of the Uthukottai Co-operative Supervising Union. The Conjeevaram Co-operative Central bank, Ltd., has a directorate consisting of 24 members. A 1-1-1966, and one of the directors, who retired, was from the Uthukottai Co-operative Supervising Union was called upon to elect another representative to the Board of Directors of the Conjeevaram Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. The representative of the uthukottai Co-operative Supervising Union is to be elected from the several co-operative credit societies affiliated to the union. The Kallanur Co-operative Credit Society, of which the petitioner is a member...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »