Chennai Court September 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.
N. Bhaktavatsalu Chetty and ors. Vs. M. Natesa Achari (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ388
M. Anantanarayanan, C. J.1. Under the circumstances of this revision proceeding by the tenants-of certain premises, it appears to me to be clear that the petition will have to be allowed. The facts are not in dispute, that the landlord is the Rajachar Ammakanna Ammal Trust, a religious and charitable endowment represented by the trustees. The revision petitioners are the tenants of certain residential premises.2. Briefly stated, the landlord claim's the right to evict these tenants under Section 10(3)(b) of Madras Act XVIII of 1960, which Is in he following terms:Where the landlord of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is required for the purpose of the institution, apply to the Controller...for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building.3. At first, I Was inclined to the view that the effective words of this sub-section, namely, 'if the ...
In Re: Kandaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ372
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant who has preferred the appeal from the Jail was committed under Section 304 (Part I), Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2. The charge against the appellant is that he committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of his wife Arukkani by throttling her at about 1 P.M. on 9th September, 1966 at his house in Nochipalayam.3. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly these : The appellant married the deceased Arukkani about 10 or 11 months before the occurrence. At the time of her death, she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. The appellant and his wife were living separately in a hut in Nochipalayam village. In the adjacent hut, the appellant's mother, his elder brother Palaniswami and his wife were living. It appears that the appellant gave his share of land to be cultivated on warram basis to his brother...
U. Muthukrishnan Vs. Sri Palani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ129
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs laid the suit for recovery of the suit properties or in the alternative for joint possession along with the defendant. The properties belonged originally to one Swarnathammal who created a trust on 30th July, 1925, under Exhibit A-l by which she appointed Srinivasa Pillai and his, heirs as trustees. Srinivasa Pillai died in July, 1930. He had three sons, Sabarathnam, who died on 16th November, 1949, Manickavachagam and the present defendant. The plaintiffs are the sons of Sabarathnam; The defendant was adopted to his aunt's husband Vasudeva, on 20th February, 1950, under Exhibit B-2, The other brother of the defendant, i.e., Manickavachagam, became adopted to his paternal grand-uncle even in 1936 during the lifetime of Srinivasa Pillai. Defendant filed a suit for partition in O.S. No. 13 of 1942 of the properties and in it included the suit properties. Exhibit B-19 is the plaint in that suit and Exhibit B-21 is the pr...
M. Vs. S. Kathirvelu Nadar V. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR786(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These matters have been heard together because of common points. The tax cases relate to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and the writ petitions to the years 1961 to 1965. M. V. S. Kadirvelu Nadar of Tuticorin obtained in 1941 from the Government a lease of certain forest lands of a total extent of 410 acres, of which 310 are situate in Papanasam Hills and the rest in the Ambasamudram range. The lease were for a fixed period of 25 years, but eligible to renewal. In about 1944, the lessee entered into a partnership with W. P. A. R. Chandrasekaran and his two brothers, Ramamurti and Rajagopalan, in respect of 310 acres. This partnership would appear to have been reduced in writing by a document dated May 10, 1954. For the year 1957-58, the lessee was assessed on the total income from the entire extent of 410 acres. For the following assessment year, the assessee claimed to have entered into a partition with effect from August 17, 1957, said to have been confirmed ...
Saleha Bi and ors. Vs. A. Hajee Abdul Rahim Saheb and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ557
R. Srinivasan, J.1. M/s. Quaium and Company, by its partners, laid a suit against M/s. Haji Abdul Rahim Saheb and Company, by its partners, for accounts. The latter company sued the former and sought to recover a certain sum as due to them as per the accounts in respect of the business conducted as between them. In what follows, M/s. Quaium and Company will be referred to as the principals and M/s. Haji Abdul Rahim Saheb and Company as the agents. The principals carry on the business of tanning in Mel Visharam, North Arcot district and the agents are engaged in doing commission business at Madras, selling the tanned hides of the principals as also of other tanners. A broad statement of the opposing contentions would suffice for dealing with the points raised in these appeals. It is not in dispute that the agents were selling goods of the principals during the period June, 1954 to July, 1957. It was alleged by the principals that the agreed commission was 2 per cent. of the realisations...
The Weavers Mills Ltd., Rajapalayam Vs. Balkis Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad462; (1969)2MLJ509
1. These appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, in a suit instituted by the appellant in A. S. 28 of 1962 for declaration of its title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from executing the decree obtained by her (the first defendant who is the appellant in the other appeal A. S. 178 of 1962) in O. S. 16 of 1949 or in the alternative to set aside the judgment and decree in O. S. 3 of 1958, both on the file of the same Subordinate Judge. The appellant in A. S, 28 of 1962 is a limited liability company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, on 12-7-48, with its registered office at Raja-palayam. Two of Its promoters, one of them the 2nd defendant in the suit and the other by name Ayyadurai alias Madeswamy Moopanar, purchased the suit lands under two registered sale deeds dated June 17th and June 18th of 1945, for a total consideration of Rs. 11000 from one Ramaswami Raja...
Achammal and anr. Vs. N. Krishna Naidu and ors. (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ127
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. C.M.A. No. 88 of 1964 was an appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1(a), Civil Procedure Code, against the order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in A.S. No. 179 of 1963 on his file, remanding the suit O.S. No. 32 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvallur, for fresh disposal. By judgment dated 23rd June, 1967, in C.M.A. No. 88 of 1964, I held that the order of remand was not justified and directed the District Judge to dispose of the appeal A.S. No. 179 of 1963, according to law. I also gave a direction that the Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in C.M.A. No. 88 of 1964 might be refunded. The office has now pointed out that there is no provision in Section 67 of the Madras Court-Fees Act XIV of 1955 for refund of Court-fee under such circumstances. A similar order was passed directing refund of Court-fee on the memorandum of appeal in C.M.A. No. 369 of 1964. I agree with the office that Section 67 does not provide for refund o...
R. Selvaraj Vs. Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ417
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the City Civil Judge taking the view that the entire claim is triable only by the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act and that, as such, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On that view, it returned the petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis to the petitioner for presentation in the proper Court. The claim consisted of two items, (i) recovery of a sum of money as for personal injuries caused to the petitioner in the course of a. motor accident, and (ii) recovery of another sum of money as damage to the cycle in the course of the accident. The Court below followed Om Prakash v. N.F. & G. Insurance Co. : AIR1962MP19 . and arrived at the view that the civil Court will have no jurisdiction..2. So far as the claim in respect of the personal injuries to the petitioner is concerned, the Court below was clearly right in the view it took. Sections no (1) and 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act make it crystal clea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›