Chennai Court April 1966 Judgments
Raval and Company Vs. K.G. Ramachandran (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ50
K. Srinivasan, J.1. When Madras Act (XVIII of 1960) was passed, Section 30 was enacted therein exempting from the operation of the Act any non-residential building, the rental value of which on the date of the commencement of that Act as entered in the tax assessment book of the municipal council or other local body exceeded Rs. 400 per mensem. This provision was amended by Madras Act (II of 1962) substituting in the place of the rental value entered in the tax assessment book, the monthly rent paid by the tenant. This exemption was removed later by Act (XI of 1964.) In between the dates of the passing of the two latter Acts, the landlords of certain premises, the respondents in this petition, filed an application before the House Rent Controller--H.R.C. No. 2942 of 1963--for the fixation of fair rent. The tenant came to this Court contending that since the tenancy was under a contractual arrangement by means of a registered lease deed for a term of years, the House Rent Control Act co...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ambalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1521
ORDERNatesan, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Eg-more, Madras, for an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to R. I, for six months under Section S04-A, I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner on 15-4-1965 rashly or negligently drove his car MSP 6788 at about 9-30 A. M. on the Mount Road and knocked down one Dhandapani aged 13 years who was riding a cycle. The injuries sustained by the boy in the impact resulted in his death at about 9-45 a. m.2. Certain basic facts which may be taken to be beyond controversy, may first be set out. The scene of accident is on the Mount Road in the locality known as Round Tana between two pedestrian crossings which according to P. W. 7, Reserve Sub Inspector attached to D.2 traffic station, is separated by a distance of about 125 ft. There is a slight turn o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ416
Venkataraman, J.1. This is an unfortunate case. The facts are these. The petitioner Kuppuswami was charged by the Sub Inspector of Police before the VIIIth Presidency Magistrate, G.T. Madras, for an offence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, the allegation being that on 14.9.1965 at about 16 hours at Kothawalchavadi, he was found in possession of a bottle containing 12 ounces of coloured alcohol and a small bottle containing 1 ounce of coloured alcohol without permit. On 15.9.1965 the first day of hearing, when the copies of the records were furnished to him and he was questioned under Section 242, Criminal P.C. (this being a summons case), he denied the offence. Consequently, summons were issued to the prosecution witnesses. The case was adjourned to 21.9.1965. Since the witnesses were not ready, it was adjourned to 29th September 1965. On that day, the following is what happened according to the judgment of the learned Magistrate:Today when the case is taken by up f...
Tag this Judgment!Sennammal Vs. K. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad76
ORDER(1) Section 4 of the Partition Act, IV of 1893 is very clear that, when the transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family, who is not a member of that family, sues for partition, the Court is bound to value that share, and to have it conveyed to any member of the family, who is prepared to buy out the transferee. In the present case, the augment on behalf of the transferee, who has instituted this revision proceeding, is that the commissioner who made a report in March 1964, has specifically stated that the two third share purchased by the transferee can be easily severed and enjoyed as a separate share, without disturbing the enjoyment of the one-third share by the other co-parcener or coparceners. In other words, certain features of this dwelling house render it practicable that the two third share may be thus separately enjoyed, by the member of the family to whom it is allotted at the partition, or even by a transferee.(2) But this argument does no...
Tag this Judgment!P. Amalanathan Vs. the Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ496
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Superintendent of Police, Salem in D.O. No. 1731 of 1964, dated 23rd September, 1964.2. The petitioner joined the Police Service of the Madras State in 1941 as Sub-Inspector of Police. While he was serving in the Salem District, he was placed under suspension on 27th October, 1952, pending enquiry into certain charges against him. The enquiry into the charges began on 19th December, 1952, and ended on 7th January, 1953. The petitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 4th December, 1953, to take effect retrospectively from the date of suspension, 27th October, 1952.3. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1516 of 1956 in this Court for quashing the order of dismissal passed against him. This Court by an order dated 11th November, 195.8, issued the writ prayed for and quashed the order of dismissal. The State of Madras preferred Writ Appeal No. 78 of 1959 again...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Palaniappan Vs. the Commissioner of Salem Municipality and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ169
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the accused in a prosecution under Section 216 read with Section 317 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The accused has been convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. It is seen from the records that for putting up unauthorised constructions without obtaining the permission of the Executive Authority of the Municipality, provisional notice was issued under Section 216(1) of the Act on 31st May, 1963, requiring the accused (petitioner herein) to remove the offending constructions. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause, the Executive Authority under Section 216(3) confirmed the order on 1st August, 1964 and directed the petitioner to remove the offending constructions within three days of the receipt of the notice by the petitioner. This notice was served on the petitioner on 11th August, 1964. The notice itself specifies that on failure to comply with the directions con...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. the Madras Industrial Inve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ320
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The matter referred to us is under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the question for decision has beenphrased as follows:Whether the instrument in question is liable to be stamped even if it were not to be attested and whether instruments in general are to be stamped on execution notwithstanding that other conditions which validate the transfer of rights which the instrument purports to make are not present? Whether the instrument in question is chargeable as a mortgage-deed, under Article 40(b) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act 2. As we shall presently make it clear the facts establish beyond the shadow of any doubt or controversy that there is no executed document of any kina in the present case. There is only a draft of a proposed document which may or may not come into existence at at all. The content of the reference to us is that on the assumption or supposition that this document might be executed as a deed of mortgage without attestati...
Tag this Judgment!T.L. Jagannatha Iyer Vs. Jeevan Alias Bapoo and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ494
ORDER1. This petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 84 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai, a suit instituted by him against the respondents one of whom was a minor at the time of (he passing of (he decree. In pursuance of the decree, he brought the suit property for sale in E.P. No. 31 of 1960 and himself purchased it for Rs. 13,000. The first respondent in this petition who was a minor at the time of the proceedings sought to set aside the sale on the ground that though he had become a major by 26th June, 1961 no notice was taken to him and also on the. ground that several material irregularities had crept into the conduct of the sale on account of the fraud of the decree-holder which resulted in heavy loss to the minor in that the valuable property worth Rs. 60,000 was sold for Rs. 13,000. When this application out of which these proceedings arise, came before the learned Subordinate Judge, he declined to...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalaswamy (M.) Vs. Madras Dock Labour Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ540Mad
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Chairman, Madras Dock Labour Board, in EO/30/664, dated 18 January 1965.2. The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk on 1 May 1958, in the Madras Dock Labour Board. He was promoted as a stenographer and was employed as such under the labour officer of the Board till his dismissal on 26 November 1964. The annual inspection of the stationery of the labour office for the period 1 January 1963 to December 1963, was conducted by the executive officer in December 1963 and a report was submitted. On 17 February 1964, a physical verification of the stationery items supplied to the labour officer was made by the administrative officer. The administrative officer prepared a report which listed 37 items as found in the office. Subsequently, on 28 March 1964, the president of the administrative body issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit an explanation ...
Tag this Judgment!E.K. Subramaniam Vs. Mrs. Sundarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ151
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. This is a flagrant case of 'wilful default' on the part of the tenant, for the record amply proves that the tenant (revision petitioner) did not pay the rent due to the landlord for nearly a year, and thereby accumulated a formidable arrear of over Rs. 1,000. Very naturally, the landlord sought the eviction of such a defaulting tenant; this is without prejudice to the contention urged by learned Counsel on behalf of the tenant (revision petitioner) that the case of his client was that the rent was only Rs. 120 per mensem and not Rs. 140 per mensem.2. Needless to say, arrears of over Rs. 1,000 could never have accumulated, even if the tenant had paid the rent regularly at the rental admitted by him, Rs. 120 per mensem. The trouble was that the tenant did not pay any rent at all for a considerable period, which compelled the landlord to take proceedings for eviction. Finally, when the matter came up before the Court of the learned Rent Controller, he pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »