Chennai Court March 1966 Judgments
State Wakf Board, Madras Vs. Abdul Azeez Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad79
M. Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J.(1) This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the Wakf Board of Madras State represented by its Secretary, from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in C.M.P. No. 6252 of 1964 in S.A. No. 965 of 1961. We may very briefly state, before setting out the essential facts necessary for an analysis of the ground of controversy in this appeal, that the application was under the Muslim Wakf Act, for declaring a particular decree (decree in O.S. No. 432 of 1956 on the file of the Third Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, confirmed by the judgment in A.S. No. 437 of 1958, District Court, Tiruchirapalli and S.A. No. 965 of 1961 of this Court) as void within the scope of S. 57, sub-clause (3) of the Act (29 of 1954). The learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) dismissed the petition as barred by limitation and the appeal is from this order.(2) Before proceeding to the facts, it may be necessary to notice the precise terms of S. 57(1) and 57(3) of the Wakf Act (29 of 1954...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Pioneer Laundry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ425Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. The respondent-company filed an application for a declaration that they were not liable to pay the employer's special contribution for every quarter commencing from 1 December 1959 and ending with 31 December 1959, and subsequent quarters ending with 31 December 1961, in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, The appellant-Employees' State Insurances Corporation filed an application for directing the company to pay the amount which might be found due to the Corporation on the ground that the company had employed more than twenty persons. The main contention of the company was whether the managing partner who was designated as manager in the returns of the company could be included as an employee, when computing the number of employees in the company under the provisions of the Act. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has come to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad HussaIn Rowther Vs. Kasaiyya Sholagar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ312
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the Rent Court, Thanjavur. The petitioner is the landowner. The respondent-tenant filed an application under Section 3(6) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, (XXIV of 1956), to direct the landowner to maintain the lands in proper condition by doing the reclamation work to the leasehold lands affected and damaged by floods of July, 1961. Both the Presiding Officer of the Rent Court, Thanjavur, and the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif), Tiruvaiyaru, have held that the landowner was bound to maintain the lands as prayed for by the tenant. It is against this order the landowner has filed the present revision petition.2. Section 3(6) of the Act is in the following words:The landowner shall bear all capital expenditure necessary to maintain the land and wells in a state of proper repair. Now what is the interpretation to be given to the words ' maintain the land and wells in a state...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Bhavani Panchayat Vs. M.K. Mani Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ428
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. The Writ Appeals before us are from the judgment of Srinivasan, J., W.P. Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1965 in which the learned Judge upon the submissions in the petitions of one M.K. Mani Iyer, has directed the issue of writ of mandamus against the Executive Officer of Bhavani Panchayat (Coimbatore district), requiring the officer to renew a hotel licence for the year 1965-66 A great deal of the area covered by the learned Judge in his judgment, may not now be relevant for the short and clear ground on which, in our view, the writ appeals will have to be allowed. In order to maintain the focus clear, we purposely intend not to enter into several areas of the controversy, and we agree with the learned Judge in his view that the proceedings, before him did involve certain somewhat unusual features. But whatever may be said about that, or about the previous history of the case, or the particular manner in which the proceedings of the Bhavani Panchayat had been worde...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswamy Padayachi and ors. Vs. Nallamuthu Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad141; 1967CriLJ501
ORDER(1) This criminal revision case involves a question of interest, upon the degree to which a Magistrate can proceed into the basis of a certificate by a Deputy Commissioner in the Prescribed form under Section 101 of Madras Act 22 of 1959, setting forth the finding that the properly in question belonged to the concerned religious institution, and directing delivery thereof to a petitioning party, by the party in possession. Incidentally, the entire question involves a clarification of certain basic principles of law, which do appear to have been directly adverse to, in the few precedents that have been cited at the Bar.(2) Admittedly, Section 101 is a kind go summary procedure, whereby a person appointed as trustee, or to discharge functions of that character, can summarily obtain possession of the alleged properties of the religious institution, from an obstructer, on the basis of a certificate issued by the Commissioner. The implementation of the certificate is also provides for ...
Tag this Judgment!Periaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Sri Arunjadeswaraswami Temple at Tirupa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad257
(1) The defendants are appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff is Sri Arunajadeswaraswami temple at Tirupanandal. The temple filed the suit to recover possession of the land of an extent of 120 kulis belonging to it. The facts which are not in controversy are that on 24-1-1893 the temple granted a lease of the property to one Doraisami Kothan, the father of the first defendant, subject to the condition that this Doraisami Kothan, shall take possession of the property, construct a brick building for Drowpadiamman temple, start and develop a nandavanam all round the temple and plant and rear coconut trees in the Nandavanams, and pay a rent 12 annas per fasli to the devastanam on or before 31st January of each fasli. He should also maintain worship in the Ammal temple, In default of compliance with the conditions, if the temple wants be should surrender possession of the property with the trees, temple, building, nandavanam etc. It is the plaintiff's case that Doraiswami Kothan got...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian and ors. Vs. Mari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ99
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. Section 441, Indian Penal Code, which defines the offence of criminal trespass, lays it down:Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property...is said to commit criminal trespass. There is another part of the definition which relates to a person who lawfully enters upon property, but unlawfully continues there with the same criminal intent, but this part of the definition does not now concern us.2. The case against the revision petitioners (accused 1 to 3) wag a very simple one that they entered in the land assigned by the Government to Harijan Mari (P.W. 1) with the assistance of the thoti or the cremation assistant, and had the cremation of the body of Chellammal, mother of accused 2 and 3, Conducted on that land, in spite of the protests of P.W. 1. The appellate Court seems to have thought that the intention on the part of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ172
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioners, who are affected by the provisions of the Madras Urban Land Tax Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXXIV of 1963), assail its validity on grounds of legislative incompetency to enact it and of violation of constitutional limitations. The petitions are by different owners of urban lands in the City of Madras to quash the notification either under Section 9 or under Section 16(3) of the Act, in so far as they relate to the petitioners, or the levy and demand of tax on some of them under its provisions. To deal with the legal contentions, it will suffice to mention the facts in one or two petitions, as the facts in almost all the petitions are related and of more or less similar pattern, except as to particular owners, the locality of the lands in different zones and sub-zones and their character and market value. If it is necessary, reference will be made to other specific facts in disposing of the prayer for quashing of the urban land tax and Settlement Schmes pr...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanapal Chetti Vs. Avva Kanniah Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ389
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant. In R.C.O.P. No. 20 of 1960 the respondent landlord sought for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act of 1960. The landlord claimed that he was carrying on business in a rented premises, which premises was wholly inadequate to his needs. On that ground he purchased the premises in question. In 1958, he had filed an application R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 1958 under the repealed Act, which was dismissed, as also an appeal there from. The ground upon which that petition was dismissed was that under the old Act, the landlord who was in occupation, for the purposes of his business, of a premises, to the possession of which he was entitled, that is to say, as a tenant, was not eligible to the relief of eviction of his tenant from premises which might be the landlord's own. The new Act, by Section 10(3)(a)(iii), however made a departure, and enabled the landlord to obtain possession of the premises which he had let out, so long a...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthammal Vs. K. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ506
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision case arising out of a proceeding before the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Madurai, under Section 488(1)1 Criminal Procedure Code, comes before us, as the matter has been referred to a Bench in view of the conflict of caser-law and marked divergence of opinion between various High Courts and even in decisions of the same High Court on the question whether the word 'child' in Section 488(1), Criminal Procedure Code, in the context means a person 6f tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority, that is, person under non-age Or expresses only the relationship of a person as the immediate issue of a parent, without reference to age.2. The application which has given rise to the proceeding was filed by one Amirthammal, the petitioner herein, of Melaponnagaram, Madurai, against her son Marimuthu claiming maintenance for two children of Marimuthu, a son named Balakrishnan and a daughter Ramanujam, both of whom are living with her. I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »