Chennai Court February 1967 Judgments
Vijayarangam (T.N.) Vs. Southern Railway (by General Manager) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1967
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ802Mad
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner raises a question of general importance, which affects the seniority of about 3,000 persons who were directly required for the grainshop establishment in the Southern Railway. The impugned orders of the Railway Board are to the effect that in the case of the persons who are directly recruited in the grainshop establishment their services would not be taken into consideration, when they are absorbed in the other cadres in the railway administration.2. During the period of the Second World War it was extremely difficult to procure the essential foodgrains.3. In December 1949, the B.N. Rao Committee suggested the opening of cost-price grain-shop for railway employees. The Railway Board favoured the establishment of such shops not only as possible means of meeting the food shortage but also as an additional cost of living. In April 1943, the Railway Board reiterated the Government's policy to stabilize prices, as far as possible, ...
Tag this Judgment!Karupiah Palukki (Died) and ors. Vs. Periasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad260
(1) The plaintiff was the petitioner in this Court. After filing the civil revision petition, he died on 22-1-1966 and on an application by his legal representatives, they were brought on record as the present petitioners in C.M.P. No. 4412 of 1966. It is significant that at the time when the legal representatives of the original petitioner desired to bring themselves on record, there was no opposition by the respondent.(2) The petitioners instituted the action against the defendant on the foot of a promissory note, of which he secured assignment from the original payee. The assignment, however, was for purposes of collection and that his is so, is not in dispute. The original payee died after such endorsement in favour of the petitioner. After the death of the original payee, the petitioner instituted this suit on the foot of such an assignment of the promissory note Ex. A-1 in his favour. The suit was resisted on the ground that since the original payee died, the endorse has no furth...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthy Iyer Vs. Tiruppangur Sri Sivaloganathaswami Devasthanam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ70
A. Algiriswami, J.1. In this appeal an interesting question arises under the Madras Indebted Agriculturists (Repayment of Debts) Act (I of 1955). The question is whether an application for final decree filed more than three years after the first instalment became payable under that Act is barred by limitation. The facts necessary for decision in this case and which are not in dispute are as follows. A preliminary charge decree was passed in this case on 8th July, 1949 and the appellate decree on 10th April, 1953. Various sums had been paid towards the decree amount the last of them being a payment of Rs. 2,500 on 28th February, 1953. The application for passing a final decree was presented on 8th September, 1958, There was an acknowledgment Exhibit A-1 dated 21st January, 1954 and even if this is taken into account, the final decree application is beyond three years from that date. Act I of 1955 came into force on 1st March, 1955 and under it the debt became payable in four instalmens,...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyani Ammal Vs. Ezhumalai Nattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ76
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff, the decision in whose favour in the Court of first instance has been reversed on appeal raises an interesting question of law and I shall first set out the facts not in dispute. The suit is one for recovery of damages on breach of covenant of title and quiet enjoyment in relation to a purchase of certain immovable property by the plaintiff from one Thayanayaki Ammal. The property had originally belonged to a certain Kuppa Nattar, the maternal grandfather of the contesting respondent, the third defendant in the case. This Kuppa Nattar had two daughters, the said Thayanayaki Ammal and Chinnakolandai, mother of the third defendant. On 6th May, 1927, he settled the property of his aforesaid daughters for their life, the present third defendant to take the property absolutely after their lifetime. In 1930 Kuppa Nattar alleging dissatisfaction with his daughters' treatment of himself and his wife, purported to revoke the settlement deed but later conveyed the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkata Subbu and ors. Vs. the Director of Enforcement and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ281
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This group of writ petitions arises from orders of the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi, exercising powers under the Foreign Exchange-Regulation Act (VII of 1947), and the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules,, 1957, formulated by the Central Government under Section 27 of the Act. In all these cases, we propose to deal, in these judgments, with certain general grounds and issues that have been elaborately argued before us, the individual cases will then have to be taken up and dealt with, in the light of our judgments. The main reason for this procedure, which has commended itself to us as the course best adapted to the ends of justice in these cases, is that there are also special issues of fact relevant to individual instances, that would require separate treatment. For instance, in one case at least, the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Government of India, has been fair enough to concede that the very basis of the figures on which the a...
Tag this Judgment!Kunju Pillai and ors. (L.Rs.) Vs. Periasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ148
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff was the petitioner in this Court. After filing the Civil Revision Petition, he died on 22nd January, 1966, and on an application by his legal representatives, they were brought on record as the present petitioners in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4412 of 1966. It is significant that at the time when the legal representatives of the original petitioner desired to bring themselves on record, there was no opposition by the respondent.2. The petitioner instituted the action against the defendant on the foot of a promissory note, of which he secured an assignment from the original payee. The assignment, however, was for purposes of collection and that this is so, is not in dispute. The original payee died after such endorsement in favour of the petitioner. After the death of the original payee, the petitioner instituted this suit on the foot of such an assignment of the promissory note Exhibit 1 in his favour. The suit was resisted on the ground tha...
Tag this Judgment!Senathi N.V. Vasudeva Iyer Vs. the Board of Revenue Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ507
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The only question that arises in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty and stamp duty in respect of a rent deed or lease agreement levied by the Revenue Division Officer and confirmed by the District Revenue and the Board of Revenue.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing for the landlord contends before me that he is not liable to pay either the penalty or the stamp duty but it is only his tenant that has to pay the same under the provisions of the Stamp Act. He draws my attention to Section 29 of the Act which reads thus:In the absence of an agreement to the contrary the expense of providing the proper stamp shall be borne; (c) in the case of a conveyance (including a reconveyance of mortgaged property) by the grantee; in the case of a lease or agreement to lease by the lessee or intended lessee.3. Learned Counsel further draws my attention to a Bench decision of this Court in Subramania Chettiar v. R.D.O., Devakott...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›