Chennai Court March 1967 Judgments
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. Sudarsanam Picture, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad319
Natesan, J.(1) This is a reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for our opinion whether the instrument in question is a mortgage with possession coming under Art. 40(a) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act or an agreement.(2) The instrument styled as an agreement, is the record of a transaction common in the film trade, whereby the film producer granting distribution rights in specified territories to the financier termed, the distributor. The instrument secures to the distributor the realisation of his advance by covenants giving him specified rights over the film. It generally specifies the title of the film and also names of prominent artistes, featuring or expected to feature in the film. The instrument in question under consideration has been entered into by Messrs. Sudarsanam Pictures, Film Producers, with Messrs. Gee Pictures (P.), Ltd., film distributors, in respect of a Tamil talkie entitled 'Aval Yar'. the doc...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Pillai Vs. N. Govindaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad191
1. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 82 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai is the petitioner in C. K. P. No. 816 of 1966 and the 2nd defendant is the Petitioner in C. B, P. No. 1944 of 1965. The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The plaintiff's case is that he was a lessee under the 1st defendant and from the year 1953-54 the plaintiff as such lessee was in occupation of the vegetarian and the non-vegetarian stalls belonging to the 1st defendant and situate in the Central Bus Stand, Madurai. The plaintiff also avers that during 1954-55 he carried out extensive improvements to both the stalls at a cost of about Rs. 30,000/- and the stalls as they exist to-day were not constructed by the municipality. The lease deeds Exs, B-13 and B-14 were executed both between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they cover the period commencing from 1-4-1960 and expiring with 31-...
Tag this Judgment!Pappuchetti Raghavayya Chetti's Charities Vs. Commissioner of Labour a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ848Mad
Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by Pappuchetti Raghavayya Chetti's Charities by its president P. Manavala Chetti to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the papers relating to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and to quash his order dated 9 February 1967. The petitioner is a charitable institution founded by one Pappuchetti Raghavayya Chetti under a deed of trust dated 24 July 1912. The trust owns twelve items of out standings secured on mortgages and pledges and unsecured debts. The charities also maintain a kalyana koodam which is being 1st out for the auspicious functions like marriage to Brahmins and Vaisyas, For allowing the use of kalyana koodam, the charities collect a fee of Ra. 35 per day and for the use of utensils a fee of Rs. 40 is charged for two to four days, In addition to the rent of the building. When the kalyana koodam is let out, a levy at the rate of 75 palae per unit is charged towards electricity supply. The charities realized a turn o...
Tag this Judgment!Zenith Lamps and Electricals Ltd. Vs. the Registrar, High Court and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ37
ORDERNatesan, J.1. These cases raise an interesting and somewhat difficult question of the constitutional validity of the High Court-Fees Rules, 1956, which came into force on the 1st day of January, 1957. Known as the High Court-Fees Rules, 1956, it incorporates the provisions of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, XIV of 1955, which has been statutorily made applicable for suits and proceedings instituted in the High Court in its Original Jurisdiction also, and the attack is directed against the validity of Article I, Schedule I of the said Act, which provides for an uniform ad valorem fee without limit at 71/2 per cent, on all plaints or written statements pleading a set-off or counter-claim or memoranda of appeal. Except W.P. No. 3891 of 1965 the other cases were heard by our learned brother Srinivasan, J., and the matter referred to a Bench, as the questions involved have posed a variety of opinion and are of considerable importance.2. The circumstances under which the ...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Chetty Raghavaiah Chetty's Charities, by Its President P. Manava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ413
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by Pappu Chetty Raghavaiah Chetty's Charities by its President P. Manavala Chetty to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the papers: relating to the proceedings of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras and to quash his order dated 9th February, 1967. The petitioner is a charitable institution founded by one Pappu Chetty Raghavaiah Chetty under a Deed of Trust dated 24th July, 1912 The trust owns 12 items of outstanding secured on mortgages and pledges and unsecured debts. The charities also maintain a kalyana koodam which is being let out for the auspicious functions like marriage to Brahmins and Vaisyas. For allowing the use of kalyana koodam, the charities collect a fee of Rs. 35 per day and for the use of utensils a fee of Rs. 40 is charged for two to four days, in addition to the rent of the building. When the kalayana koodam is let out, a levy at the rate of 75 paise per unit is charged towards electricity supply. The charities reali...
Tag this Judgment!Sri La Sri Ajabanatessara Pandara Sannadhi, Hereditary Madathipathi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ317
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the petitioner, who is the hereditary trustee of the two temples for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, to forbear from making any appointment of non-hereditary trustee for the two temples except in accordance with the provisions of Section 47(2) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1959.2. In l933 the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments filed the suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1933 in the Court of the District Judge of East Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, for modifying the schemes already framed in respect of the suit temples against the petitioner's father and three others on the ground that they were mismanaging the temples. A decree was passed in that suit on 23rd April, 1935 framing a revised scheme. The scheme provided for the appointment of a Board of three trustees, one being the father of the petitioner as the hereditary trustee and two other tr...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Santhanakrishna Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ538
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two writ petitions raise common questions for decision and therefore they were heard together. The three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1964 are the owners of the Inam Estate of Umathanadu Udayanadu situated in Pattukottai Taluk in Tanjore District. The said estate was taken over by the State of Madras on 9th July, 1952, under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXVI of 1948, which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act. The first respondent is the Board of Revenue, Madras through the Commissioner, Settlement of Estates, Madras and the and respondent is the Director of Settlements, Board of Revenue. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1964 are the owners of the Inam Estate of Kuruvikarambai in Pattukottai Taluk, Tanjore District and it was taken over by the State of Madras on and from 14th May, 1953 under the provisions of the Act. The two respondents in this writ petition are the same as...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. the Government of Madras, Revenue Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ543
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner at the period we are concerned with, was the trustees of a Dwadasi Samaradhanai Kattalai. The Kattalai or endowment came into existence in pursuance of a will executed by one Sundaram Iyer on 2nd June, 1922. Sundaram Iyer bequeathed a small house property in Madam Street, Kumbakonam, to the aforesaid Kattalai, with a direction that out of the income from the house by way of rent, two Brahmins should be fed every Dwadasi day. There appears to have been a long and involved history of transactions over this house property. Broadly stated, the property after changing hands was transferred ultimately to the wife of the petitioner by the assignment of a usufructuary mortgage. The petitioner has set out in his affidavit an elaborate explanation in justification of the transactions. He has also asserted that notwithstanding the transactions, the object of the trust was being fulfilled. It is not necessary to go into these representations made on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mariappa Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR655(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These two references which relate to the assessment years 1952-53 and 1953-54, raise substantially the same questions as to the character of Rs. 15,000 that accrued to the assessee in each of the assessment years but recovered after a judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on April 22, 1958. On May 22, 1950, the assessee entered into an agreement with one Solaiyappa Chettiar of Pallathur to purchase a tile factory with the name and style of Sivakami Tile Factory at Pudukkad in Kerala State for a total consideration of Rs. 90,003. He made an advance of Rs. 5,003 on that day to Solaiyappa Chettiar. The stipulation in the agreement was that the sale deed should be executed and registered on or before July 15, 1950, when a sum of Rs. 50,000 should be paid to the vendor, and for the balance of the consideration, the purchaser was to execute a mortgage of the properties to the vendor. The vendor having filed to execute a sale deed in favour of the assessee but conveyed t...
Tag this Judgment!Errachi Reddier and anr. Vs. Vellaya Reddier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad258; (1968)1MLJ513
ORDER1. The plaintiffs, who have failed in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The claim relates to the plaintiffs title and right to the possession of the suit land, an extent of 3.47 cents of punja in survey field No. 162/1 B, Chinnareddipatti village, hamlet of Porundalure, Kulitalai Taluk, Tiruchirapalli Dt. They prayed for the relief of declaration of there title and for a permanent injuction restraining the defendant, from interfering with there possession, if the Court should find that the plaintiff are not in possession.2. The suit land admittedly belong to one Lavunga Reddi against whom his creditor one Kundan Chetti (D.W. 1) filed the suit O. S. 362 of 1950 on the file of then District Munsif Court, Kulitalai, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1454, for principle and interest due on promissory notes. Kundan Chetti obtained an attachment before judgment of several properties belonging to Lavunga Reddi including the suit property on 16-7-1950 and on 2...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »