Chennai Court April 1967 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
R. Sivasankara Mehta Vs. Election Commission of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad234
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The Appellant in this writ appeal Sri R. Sivasankara Mehta was a Member of the Madras Legislative Council having been elected in April 1962 from the Madras District Local Authorities Constituency. His term would continue till April 1968. In the meanwhile on a petition filed by a creditor he was adjudication as insolvent on 26-4-1966. He filed an appeal on 29-4-1966 against the adjudication and this appeal was numbered as O. S. A. 43 of 1966. Pending the disposal of the appeal he applied for interim relief from the appellate court and three orders in succession were passed on 29-4-1966, 8-8-1966 and finally on 3-2-1967. It is not necessary to set out at length the gist of these orders. We have been taken through these interim orders passed by the Bench of this court dealing with the O. S. Appeal of which one of us was a member. The main conclusion that emerges from these order is that while certain reliefs were orders is that while certain reliefs were given to Sri M...
K. Muniandi Vs. Selvarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ12
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant in the suit applied under Order 8-A Civil Procedure Code, for impleading the father of the plaintiff as the second defendant to the suit. The suit itself was one on a promissory note. The defence was that it was taken in terrorem, not supported by consideration, and that a portion of the amount due and payable under the said promissory note was already recovered by the proposed party, viz., the father, and that such amounts have to be given credit to by the plaintiff, the son. It is seen from the records that the written statement was signed by the Advocate for the defendant on 27th November, 1965, but the third party application was taken out on 10th March, 1966. The learned District Munsif, in his order, states that there is no specific allegation in the written statement that amounts were paid by the first defendant to the proposed party and that they were paid towards the suit pronote. But on a fair reading of the allegations in paragraph 14 o...
R. Sivasankara Mehta Vs. the Election Commission of India, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ607
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The appellant in this writ appeal Sri R. Sivasankara Mehta was a Member of the Madras Legislative Council having been elected in April, 1962 from the Madras District Local Authorities Constituency. His term would continue till April, 1968. In the meanwhile on a petition filed by a creditor he was adjudicated as insolvent on 26th April, 1966. He filed an appeal on 29th April, 1966 against the adjudication and this appeal was numbered as O.S.A. No. 43. of 1966. Pending the disposal of the appeal he applied for interim relief from the appellate Court and three orders in succession were passed on 29th April, 1966, 8th August, 1966 and finally on 3rd February, 1967. It is not necessary to set out at length the gist of these orders. We have been taken through these interim orders passed by the Bench of this Court dealing with the O.S.A. of which one of us was a member. The main conclusion that emerges from these orders is that while certain reliefs were given to Sri Meh...
Mahendra Kumar Ishwarlal and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad241; [1968]21STC72(Mad)
Ramkrishnan, J. (1) This revision case is filed against the order of the Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 21 of 1963 by the petitioners who are the assessees. The petitions are Mahendra Kumar Ishwarlal and Co., jaggery and foodgrains merchants at Tirupattur. The petitioners constitute a firm comprising of four partners, with shares noted against each as below:--Rs. a. p.1. Chunilal Bhagvandas ... 0 2 02. Ranchoddas Ramdas ... 0 2 03. Mahendra Kumar Chunilal ... 0 6 04. Ishwarlal Ranchoddas ... 0 6 0It may be mentioned that No. 3 is the son of No. 1 and No. 4 is the son of No. 2. There is a Bombay firm known as 'Chunilal Bhagvandas and Co.', comprising of the same partners, but with this difference, namely, that the share of each of the aforesaid partners is four annas.(2) In the years of assessment, the Tirupattur firm claims to have transferred to the Bombay firm jaggery which has been valued at Rs. 4,40,675.87. It is with this part of the transactions that we are conc...
M.C. Perumal Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Estates Abolition Tribunal (Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ157
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J. 1. Some of the ryots of Baburayampettai village in Maduranthakam Taluk, Chingleput District, have filed these petitions to quash the order dated 31st August, 1964, of the Estates Abolition Tribunal (District Judge) Chingleput, declaring that the lands, for which the respondent-Devasthanam has claimed patta, are the private lands of the Devasthanam.2. Ever since the village of Baburayampettai was declared an Inam Estate under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, there has been regular litigation between the ryots of the Village and the Devasthanam. The Devasthanam has been contending that it possessed the Melwaram and the Kudiwaram rights in the lands and that the village was not an Inam Estate. In 1950, the Inam Settlement Officer, Chittoor, declared Baburayampettai as an Inam Estate. The said order Was confirmed in appeal by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, holding that there was no proof that the grant was of both the warams in the Village or that the grantee posse...
Duraivelu Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ421
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in R.P. No. 63 of 1965 from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and the Resolution of the Area Committee No. 1067 of 1965 dated 3rd July, 1965, appointing the 3rd respondent as a trustee and quashing the same. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a trustee by the Area Committee and the appointment was confirmed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The appointment is challenged on the ground that the 3rd respondent is disqualified under Section 26(h) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (XXII of 1959) and is that he has acted adversely to the interests of the institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner was a hereditary trustee and that the Area Committee had no jurisdiction to appoint any other trustee. Lastly he submitted that the impugned order was vitiated in ...
The State of Madras Vs. T.T. Gopalier and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: [1969]21STC451(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The respondents in these two revision cases are different, but they were heard together because a common question of interpretation arises in them. The respondent in T.C. No. 164 of 1964 is T.T. Gopalier, a dealer in braided cord, and the respondent in T.C. No. 283 of 1964 is the Madurai Braided Cord and Tape Producers Co-operative Industrial Society Limited, also a dealer in a similar commodity as well as tape. For the year of assessment they claimed exemption from assessment on their sales of 'braided cord', relying for the purpose on entry 4 in the Third Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which is in the following terms:All varieties of textiles (other than durries, carpets, druggets and pure silk cloth) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple fibre, rayon, artificial silk or wool including handkerchiefs, towels, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces and hosiery cloth in lengths.2. The view of the department was ...
Vaikuntam Estate (Represented by S.S. Sarma, Former Superintendent, No ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ93Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope of the powers of en arbitrator, to whom the parties to an industrial dispute have made a voluntary reference under Section 10A. of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947)(hereinafter called the Act), comes in for consideration. The employer is the management of the Vaikun-tam Estate, Murthandam, in the Kanyakumari district, who is the petitioner in this writ petition. The arbitrator is Sri T.S. Ramaswami, respondent 1, and the workers of the Vaikuntam estate are represented by the secretary, Kumari Estate Workers' Union, Nagercoil, Kanyaknmari district, respondent 2. A number (42) of workers of the estate filed claim petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Act contending that they were permanent field workers in the estate which maintains a plantation, that they had been denied several benefits to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951...
The Managment of the Vaikundan Estate, Represented by Sri S.S. Sarma, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ202
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the scope of the powers of an Arbitrator, to whom the parties to an industrial dispute have made a voluntary reference under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called-the Act) comes in for consideration. The employer is the management of the Vaikundam Estate, Marthandam, in the Kanyakumari District, who is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The Arbitrator is Sri T.S. Ramaswami, the first respondent, and the workers of the Vaikundam Estate are represented by the Secretary, Kumari Estate Workers' Union; Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, the second respondent. A number of workers of the estate (42) filed claim petitions under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, contending that they were permanent field workers in the estate which maintains a plantation, that they had been denied several benefits to which they were entitled under the provisions of the Planta...
Jagannadh Vs. Perumal Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ558
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The appellant who is the plaintiff, in the suit for partition and separate possession, Original Suit No. 66 of 1947, has preferred this appeal against the order of the lower Court dismissing his application for the passing of the final decree on the ground that he committed fraud on the lower Court in obtaining the preliminary decree for partition.2. The main facts which are not in controversy may be stated. The B schedule properties of which A schedule also forms part, belonged to four brothers the first defendant, the third, the sixth and the father of the seventh defendant. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant, defendants 4 and 5 are sons of the third defendant and the other defendants are alienees. One Chunilal Sowcar (hereinafter' referred to as Sowcar) obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 102 of 1930, against the first defendant on 2nd September, 1930. Later on in 1931, defendants 3 and 6 executed security bonds offering themselves liable ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »