Chennai Court October 1967 Judgments
The Salem Fiarlands Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. by Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ300
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. The Salem Fairlands co-operative House Building Society Limited has by its Secretary, filed this writ petition to call for the records in C.M.A. No. (C.S.) 1 of 1963 on the file of the co-operative Tribunal, Salem (District Judge, Salem) and quash the order dated 20th November, 1964.2. The Salem Fairlands co-operative House Building Societv Limited is a Society registered under Act VI of 1932. The object of the Society is to carry on for the benefit of its members the trade of building and of buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing land in accordance with co-operative principles and to give loans to members for construction of new dwelling houses. In respect of it, the Society has framed by--laws, and By-law 37(b), with which we are concerned in this petition, provides:A member who has under by-law 37 (a) exercised the option of constructing the house himself or herself shall apply for a Government loan through the Societv within the period of six mont...
Tag this Judgment!M. Anandan, Proprietor, Vega Motors Vs. M.M. Palaniswami Nadar and Son ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ297
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. The short and simple question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Regional Transport Authority, Ramanathapuram, should consider the application filed by the petitioner for extension of route and the application for additional trips filed by the first respondent together or preference should be given to the petitioner's application for extension of route in the matter of hearing and final disposal.2. The petitioner is a fleet-owner and is running one of his buses from Vrudhunagar to Mandapasalai, a distance of 23 miles. The first respondent is another fleet-owner who is running one of his buses on the route Virudhunagar to Mudukalathur, a distance of 50 miles; and another bus from Aruppukottai to Mudukalathur, a distance of 47 miles. On these routes, there are two important places, Neeravi and Kamudhi, where there is a long felt need for transport facilities to the villagers of the two places. In order to satisfy the need of these...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Madras State Electricity Board Vs. Gobichettipalayam Mun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ214
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. This revision proceeding involves a question of some interest and importance. That question may be tersely expressed in the form whether the Madras State Electricity Board, a statutory body, transacting the business of the supply of electricity to consumers in many Municipalities and Panchayats of the State, is liable to pay profession tax for the concerned half year in all those places, or can claim that a single payment of profession tax at the maximum fate of Rs. 125 for the half year at one centre of business, or at its headquarters will suffice, and that the amount of this tax must be proportionately divided among all the Municipalities and Panchayats, where the Board maintains Branch establishments supplying electricity to the concerned consumers. The point really arose with reference to Gobichettipalayam Municipality in a suit to recover several assessments of half-yearly profession tax amounts from the petitioner Board.2. The point argued by Sri C. R...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Govindan and anr. Vs. A. Rajagopal Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ315
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application filed by the owner of No. 13, Nagappa Mudali Street, Komaleeswaranpet, Madras-2, under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) for eviction of the four tenants therein since the landlord required the building for his own occupation and was not occupying a residential building of his own in the City. The Rent Controller allowed the application. Two of the four tenants did not challenge the order, but two others, C.V. Govindan and T. Govindaswami (the petitioners before me), took up the matter in appeal. The appeal was dismissed and hence this further revision petition.2. The facts concurrently found by the Courts below are these. The landlord is not occupying a residential building of his own in the City. He is at present occupying No. 21, Chinnathambi Naicken Street, Kosapet, Madras-12, about 7 miles away from the house in question in Komaleeswaranpet. T...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Tirunelveli and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ324
M. Natesan, J.1. These appeals by the State and its concerned officers have been preferred against an order passed by our learned brother Kailasam J., (in. Ramananda v. Taluk Supply Officer I.L.R. (1968) Mad. 679) declaring under Article 226 of the Constitution, the provisions of the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) invalid, and granting consequential reliefs. The order in question was issued by the state as delegate of the Central Government on 28th of June, 1966, under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955), an Act to provide, in the interests of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. The several respondents, as persons aggrieved by action taken against them under the said order, challenged the legality of the action of the authorities, questioning the vires of the Order. The Order int...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Velan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ554
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, overruling the objection raised by the petitioner that the prosecution was void under Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code.2. To appreciate the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it may be necessary to state the relevant facts of the case. The revision petitioner, Velan was the Executive Officer, Nazareth Panchayat Board in Tirunelveli District from 6th November, 1959 to 18th October, 1960. The Sub-Inspector of Police,. Nazareth, filed a chargesheet before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, alleging that the petitioner in his capacity as the Executive Officer of the Nazareth Panchayat Board drew the Panchayat amounts from the local Co-operative bank, Nazareth, and from the Sub-Treasury, Tiruchendur, to the extent of Rs. 1,350 by means of self-cheques and committed breach of trust of the said amounts by non-utilising the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!R. Manki Bai Ammal Vs. the State of Madras by Authorised Officer, Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ572
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition raises an interesting question under the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961).2. The petitioner one Manki Bai Amaml was possessed of large extents of lands. By a settlement deed, dated 29th August, 1959, she settled her properties on her three major sons and one minor son, then represented by her eldest son as guardian thereto. Pursuant to such a settlement of the properties by her and on her own volition, the petitioner did not include in her returns under Act LVIII of 1961 the properties so settled by her in favour of her 'minor son, apparently under the belief that such a settlement constituted a partition within the meaning of Section 3 (14), Explanation (1). The Land Ceiling Officer, however, included such holding of the minor, so settled by her, in the return filed by her in her individual capacity, and treated such lands of the minor as if the same were held by her in her individual capacity, ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajagopal Naidu Vs. Smt. Muthulakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad5
1. The judgment-debtor-petitioner, aggrieved by the orders of the lower court who refused to set aside a sale of the property in execution of a money decree, canvasses the legality of the same, as petitioner in this court. The petitioner's case is that the property has been valued by him even at the stage when it was attached before judgment at Rs. 6500. After the suit ended in a compromise decree, the attachment having been raised, that first respondent-decree-holder reattached the property in execution. The property consists of two items (1) garden land of an extent of 74 cents and (2) cultivable land of an extent of 58 cents with a well in it. In E.P. 632 of 1962, the property was valued by the village munsif itemwar at Rs. 800 and Rs. 1000 each. Incidentally the second item of the property was subject to an encumbrance in favour of the Co-operative Society from whom the judgment-debtor secured a loan to widen the well. After the property was attached in execution, the petitioner's ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajagopal Naidu Vs. Srimathi Muthulakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ421
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The judgment-debtor-petitioner, aggrieved by the orders of the lower Court which refused to set aside a sale of his property in execution of a money decree, canvasses the legality of the same, as petitioner in this Court. The petitioner's case is that the property has been valued by him even at the stage when it was attached before judgment at Rs. 6,500. After the suit ended in a compromise decree, the attachment having been raised, the 1st respondent-decree-holder re-attached the property in execution. The property consists of two items (i) garden land of an extent of 74 cents, and (ii) cultivable land of an extent of 58 cents with a well in it. In Execution Petition No. 632 of 1962, the property was valued by the Village Munsif item-war at Rs. 800 and Rs. 1,000 each. Incidentally the second item of the property was subject to an encumbrance in favour of the Co-operative Society from whom the judgment-debtor secured a loan to widen the well. After the property...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Sethuvel Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ210
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. 1. These appeals have been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor against the orders of acquittal. The respondents in all these cases Were prosecuted for offences under Sections 2 (i) (a) (1), 7 (i) and 16 (1) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Clause A. 11.11 in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. As the point raised in all these appeals is the same, they are disposed of together. The subject-matter in all these appeals is ice cream made of skimmed milk.2. The respondent in C.A. No. 212 of 1965 was the proprietor of Vasudev Ice Factory, Cool house at Door No. 166, West Masi. Street, Madurai. The Sanitary Inspector, Madurai Municipality, purchased 600 grams of ice cream from the respondent for sample. On analysis by the Analyst, the sample was found to be deficient in fats to the extent of 80 per cent.3. In C.A. No. 291 of 1965, the Sanitary Inspector purchased 600 grams of ice cream from the respondents as sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »