Chennai Court August 1966 Judgments
Ching Chong Sine Vs. Puttay Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad152
(1) This is an application under S. 115 C. P. C. to revise the order of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore in C. R. P. 1052 of 1962. The learned District Judge allowed a revision by the landlord against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ootacamund in C. M. A. 2 of 1962 by which the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the order of the House Rent Controller in H. R. C. 69 of 1960 and held that there was no wilful default by the tenant justifying his eviction. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that there was wilful default and so allowed the revision. Realising the limitations of S. 115 C. P. C., Mr. A.K. Sriraman learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the learned District Judge in so far as he differed from the Subordinate Judge and held that there was wilful default in the payment of rent by the tenant was either exercising a jurisdiction not vested in him or acted with material irregularity and therefore this Court in exercise of its powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Rangarajan (K.) and ors. Vs. State of Madras (by Executive Engineer, P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ394Mad
Kailasam, J.1. These three petitions relate to the same matter and can be dealt with together. The writ petitions are filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling, for the records of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Cauveri Division, Tanjore, relating to the suspension order of the petitioners and for quashing the same. As the facts are similar in all the three writ petitions, Writ Petition No. 3971 of 1966 will be dealt with,2. The petitioner was working as head lascar In Public Works Department, Valangaiman section at Sakkottal. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Cauveri Division, by his order No. 5015-M, dated 30 September 1964, transferred the petitioner from Valangalman to Sirkall. This order was served on the petitioner on 2 October 1964. The petitioner met the Executive Engineer in person on 3 October 1964, and requested him to cancel the orders of transfer and permit him to continue in Valangalmaa section Itself. On 6 October 1964 the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!A.T. Ramaswami Naicker Vs. Ganapathiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ508
Natesan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the suit, Original Suit No. 20 of 1959, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, and relate to the estate of one Rangaswami Naicker who died on 28th March, 1927. The three plaintiffs in the suit are his only children, all daughters, and the first: defendant is his divided nephew. The other defendants to the suit are sons of the first defendant. Rangaswami Naicker's brother Thirupathy Naicker had died leaving the first defendant and another son who died subsequently both minors. The partition between Rangaswami Naicker and the first defendant was in September, 1921, during the minority of the first defendant amicably brought about and fair in all respects. The evidence shows that despite the partition, the uncle and nephew were living together with affection towards each other. Rangaswami Naicker had taken three wives in the hope of having a male issuer but each wife had only a female child, the three plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Athiappa Gounder and ors. Vs. S.A. Athiappa Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad445; 1967CriLJ1650
(1) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the period of two months mentioned in the second proviso to Sec.145(4) Crl. P. C. as the period within which a person forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed could get relief should be literally and strictly construed with reference to the date of the preliminary order, as mentioned in that proviso, or whether it should be liberally and equitably construed with reference to the date of the petition.(2) There is conflict of judicial opinion on this question. The leading decision in favour of the liberal interpretation is the Bench decision of this court in C. Narayana v. K. Kesappa, whichrefers to the conflicting decisions of this High Court on this question A Bench decision of the Andhra High Court in Padmaraju Subba Raju v. P. Koneti Raju, delivered by Subbu Rao C. J. as he then was, dissented from the above decision and took the other view based on literal interpretation of the proviso. As the earlier Bench decision of this High Co...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Kanyakumari Vs. C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ302
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This Second Appeal by the State, arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for an injunction restraining the State from disturbing his possession. The suit lands of a total extent of Ac. 851-51 cents are comprised, as claimed by the respondent, in S. Nos. 2888/2 and 3, 2902/1 and 2917/3. The respondents title to the property is rested on a sale deed dated 26-2-1050 (M.E.). The lands were included in a notification dated 7th April, 1908, made under Section 4 of the Travancore Forest Act of 1088 which has been replaced now by the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act, 1951 but with identical provisions. This was followed by a further notification published on 30th June, 1908 under Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, the final notification under Section 18 has yet to be made. Under this Act, the Government took power to constitute any land at its disposal as a reserved forest in the manner provided therein. The notif...
Tag this Judgment!M.N. Subramania Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Shanmugham Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad48
ORDER(1) In this case by the compromise decree passed on 27-9-1962, defendants 2 to 5 in O.S. 1033 of 1956 were directed to remove the asbestos shed and deliver possession of the property to the appellant (plaintiff in O.S. 1033 of 1956 on or before 31-8-1966 and in default the appellants shall be entitled straightway to recover possession of the property from the defendants 2 to 5 in the said suit by executing the decree. By means of this petition the said defendants 2 to 5 pray for further extension of time for removal of the shed and delivery of possession of the premises to the plaintiffs. They say that though they expected to get possession of an adjoining vacant site within the time stipulated, it has not been possible for them to do so. It is urged on their behalf by Sri T. K. Subramania Pillai, the learned counsel, that they have invested about rupees three lakhs on the property, and that it will cost undue hardship to them if they are directed to remove the shed and deliver po...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar and Sons, Dindigul Vs. Joint Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad72; [1966]18STC357(Mad)
(1) These writ appeals are placed before us on a reference by a Division Bench of which two of us happened to be members. The question we are called upon to decide is whether S. 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959 includes the power to assess by best judgment escaped turnover.(2) The appellant was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1961-61 and 1962-63 by orders dated 5-10-1962 and 29-8-1963. In July 1964 there was a surprise inspection of the residence of one V. Pichaimuthu which resulted in discovery of 29 slips of which eight were alleged to refer to the appellant. Sometime later there was another inspection of the business premises of Messrs R. Perumal and M. Palaniandi Chettiar under whom K. Pichaimuthu was working as an accountant and this time 27 slips were recovered out of which 25 were said to relate to the appellant. On 6th December 1964 the Assessing Authority concerned served notices on the appellant to show cause why a certain turnover for each of the y...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Vajravelu Mudaliar Vs. T.M. Bhogeeswara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad402
Ramakrishnan, J.(1) The plaintiff in C. S. 21 of 1963 has filed this petitioner under Order 44 rule 1 C.P.C. for leave to appeal in forma pauperis against the judgment of Ramamurti J. on the Original Side of this Court. The plaintiff filed the suit itself in forma pauperis for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale between himself and the first defendant on 1st December 1950. This agreement of said was oral and under it the first defendant is alleged to have agreed to convey the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of one lakh of rupees and the plaintiff paid at that time a sum of Rs.7500 as part consideration Subsequently a written agreement was prepared on 1st June 1951 on unstamped paper and in this the earlier oral agreement was recited. The time fixed for completing the sale was five years. But on 1st June 1955 a fresh period of five years was granted by the first defendant to the plaintiff to complete the sale.In the meantime, the first defendant mortgaged...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar and Sons Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ502
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These writ appeals are placed before us or. a reference by a Division Bench of which two of us happened to be members. The question we are called upon to decide is whether Section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 includes the power to assess by best judgment escaped turnover.2. The appellant was assessed to sales tax for the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 by orders dated 5th October, 1962 and 29th August, 1963. In July, 1964 there was a surprise inspection of the residence of one K. Pichaimuthu which resulted in discovery of 29 slips of which eight were alleged to refer to the appellant. Some time later there was another inspection of the business premises of Messrs. R. Perumal and M. Palaniandi Chettiar under whom K. Pichimuthu was working as an Accountant, and this time 27 slips were recovered out of which 25 were said to relate to the appellant. On 6th December, 1964, the Assessing Authority concerned served notices on the appellant to show caus...
Tag this Judgment!The South India Insurance Co., Ltd. (Head Office) Bombay Vs. Lakshmi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad464; (1967)ILLJ801Mad
ORDER(1) It is true that with regard to the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961, certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code along have been made applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, as provided for in rule 18. Presumably, other provisions of the Civil Procedure Code may not apply, by implication. It is further true that under rule 7 of the rules, there is provision only for the filing of a written statement and there is no reference to the filing of an additional written statement subsequently, for which there is express provision under O. 8 rule C.P.C. Nevertheless I do not think that the court or Tribunal is devoid of an inherent power to permit such procedure as are rendered imperative by the principles of natural justice, even though there may be no explicit reference to such a procedure in the rules. The principle of S/ 151 C.P.C. has an intrinsic application to all judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals, though the section itself may not apply. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »