Chennai Court February 1967 Judgments
K. Raghavan Vs. K. Venkatarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ371
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises an important question of law as to whether a receiver can claim from the estate amounts advanced and paid by him during the course of his administration, and claim contemporaneously a lien over the liquid assets of the estate, so as to take preference over the mortgagee-decree-holder at whose instance the estate was being administered by him, and whether by necessity the receiver should file a suit to realise such amounts advanced by him, even though the advancement of such moneys is not in question and incidentally whether the claim would be barred by limitation.2. The petitioner who is the receiver appointed in the lower Court, was so appointed at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit who had a mortgage security over a press known as the Rajah Power Press, Royapettah. The receiver was allowed certain remuneration for his management and running of the press. He was in actual management of the same between 15th April...
Tag this Judgment!integral Coach Factory Employees Consumers Co-operative Stores, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ376
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This Petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmens's Compensation, Madras, dated 14th June, 1966 and made in M.S.E. Case No. 124 of 1965 and quash the same.2. The first respondent Rajan Alwar was working as a bill clerk in the Petitioner Co-operative Stores and his services were dispensed with effect from 1st June, 1965. The first respondent preferred and appeal against the said order to the Additional Commissioner for Workmens's Compensation, Madras. Notice of the appeal was served on the petitioner and he acknowledged the service but he did not appear to contest the appeal when it was taken up for hearing on 1st June, 1966. The appeal was heard ex parte. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation found that no proper enquiry had been held by the petitioner society and held that the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Madras Shops and Establishment...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chattanatha Karayalar Vs. Vaikuntarama Karayalar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad346; (1968)2MLJ150
(1) The first defendant is the petitioner. The relevant facts necessary for purposes of this case may be summarised as follows: The first defendant filed I.A. No. 374 of 1962 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Tirunelveli, under O. 3, R. 1, O. 32, R. 15, O. 26, R. 1 and S. 151, Civil P.C., for the examination of the first plaintiff by a medical expert to ascertain his mental condition and to find out whether he is capable of managing his affairs. Apparently, this application was taken by the first defendant with the object of appointing a next friend or guardian to the first plaintiff under O. 32, R. 15, Civil P.C. This application was opposed by the first plaintiff and his brother the second plaintiff. In the counter filed, the first plaintiff avers that "the plea that he should be represented by a next friend is a malicious one and that it is not bona fide". He has also produced their family doctor's certificate to show that the allegations of the first defendant are false. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Badrabahu Nainar Vs. Devendra Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ163
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The third defendant in the suit is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The auction purchaser after obtaining the sale certificate in his favour of the suit property which was sold in execution of a decere applied to the lower Court, under Order 21, Rule 95, Civil Procedure Code for delivery of possession of the property purchased by him. The sale was confirmed on 10th March, 1959, after the disposal of Execution Application No. 147 of 1959 filed by the judgment-debtor for extension of time for payment of the decree amount under an arrangement by then entered into between him and the decree-holder. After the dismissal of Execution Application No. 147 of 1959 the judgment-debtors took up the matter in revision in Civil Revision Petition No. 1071 of 1959. This revision petition was dismissed on 26th August, 1960. The present application for delivery is filed on 19th August, 1963, within three years from the date of disposal of the Civil Revision Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Paramount Automobiles Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC34(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J. 1. A simple question arises in this writ petition, viz., whether the department can issue an erratum for collecting a penalty of Rs. 1,050 under the following circumstances. Originally there was a best judgment assessment made on the petitioner-company on 11th November, 1963. There was also a proposal to levy a penalty of Rs. 1,050 and a demand notice for the same was served on the petitioner. Both the original assessment order and the notice proposing levy of penalty were served on the petitioner on 29th November, 1963. Then the petitioner was served with an erratum dated 12th October, 1964, which stated that in the original assessment order though a proposal to levy a penalty was mentioned, there was no actual levy of penalty and as such a penalty of Rs. 1,050 was levied on the petitioner-company. In this writ petition, the petitioner objects to the issue of the erratum, contending that when in the original assessment order there is no actual penalty levied, the s...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Nagarajan Vs. Election Commissioner, (Principal Subordinate Judge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ393
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the unsuccessful candidate in the election to the eleventh ward of the Coimbatore Municipality against the order of the Election Commissioner, Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, finding him disqualified as he had a subsisting contract on the date of the nomination, and declaring the 2nd respondent as elected to the seat.2. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent contested the election for the eleventh ward in the Coimbatore Municipality. The nominations were filed on 4th January, 1964 and the election was held on 5th February, 1964. On 7th February, 1964, it was found that the petitioner had secured 1,795 votes as against 1,764 votes secured by the 2nd respondent and 341 votes secured by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was declared elected. The 2nd respondent filed O.P. No. 51 of 1964 before the Election Commissioner, for a declaration that (1) the petitioner was disqualified as having had a subsisting contract with the Coimbato...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thiruvengadaswamy Naidu Vs. C.T. Nachiappan, Minor Through His Fath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ145
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. The important question of law that arises in this Civil revision petition is whether a person who purchases the property during the pendency of an eviction proceeding for wilful default in the payment of rent can be impleaded as a party to the proceeding.2. On the application by the vendee, the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, impleaded him as a party. In revision, the learned District Judge, Madurai, confirmed that order. Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.3. Mr. A. Sundaram Aiyar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, contends that the application to bring on record the purchaser of the property as a party to the proceeding is not maintainable as the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to rent control proceedings.4. In Mohammad Ibrahim v. Rahiman Khan : (1947)2MLJ419 , this Court held that an order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in posse...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chellammal and ors. Vs. Accommodation Controller
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ453
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the respondent: Accommodation Controller, Coimbatore, dated 4th July, 1964 and 8th July, 1964. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of this writ petition are briefly the following: The premises bearing No. 9/48, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore belonged to Chellammal, the 1st petitioner. Subsequently she sold it to petitioner 2 who has been impleaded as her legal representative pending the writ petition. The 1st petitioner occupied a portion of the above building for her residence, and in the other portion, she was carrying on a business which is said to be the manufacture of Kesavardani Hair Oil products. Finding that the remaining portion of the building was not sufficient for the aforesaid business, she took another building on rent sometime ago, and let out the portion in or about 1961, by private arrangement, for the us...
Tag this Judgment!The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ450
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, on a reference under Section 21(6)(d) of the Chartered Accountants Act of 1949 for further enquiry and report has now forwarded its finding that the Chartered Accountant in question is guilty of 'professional misconduct' even if the consideration received for entertaining the articled clerk was expressed to be and mutually regarded by the parties as not premium. The Council has recommended the name of the Chartered Accountant to be removed from membership of the Institute for a period of three years.2. The case arose on a complaint by one L.K.V.S. Money before the Council that the respondent, the Chartered Accountant, received a premium of Rs. 2,000 in July, 1961 for entertaining the complainant's son L.V. Panchappakesan as an articled clerk, and that after returning a sum of Rs. 1,000 and failed to return the balance in terms of Regulation 34 on the termination of the articles of apprenticeship. The plea of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmony Ammal and anr. Vs. Ganesa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ616
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. Their suit O.S. No. 209 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Poonamallee, having been dismissed, and they not having filed an appeal, which they intended to file, in time, and their application for excusing the delay in the presentation of the appeal having been dismissed by the lower Court, the plaintiffs have now come up in revision against the order of the learned District Judge, Chingleput. The learned District Judge found that there was no sufficient cause for the petitioners in not preferring the appeal in time. In this Civil Revision Petition, however, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is not only sufficient cause for the petitioners not having filed the appeal in time, but that substantial injustice would be caused to them if the delay in filing the appeal is not excused. Mr. Balasubramaniam for the petitioners contends that as the matter in issu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »