Chennai Court January 1968 Judgments
T.K. Santhanagopala Chettiar and ors. Vs. Thimmi M. Seetharama Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ41
Ismail, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein instituted O.S. No. 359 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Kumbakonam, for ' (a) declaring that Sri Rajagopalaswami Temple set out in Schedule ' A' and its properties set out in Schedules ' B ' and ' C ' exclusively belong to Pattusaluvar community residents of Solamaligai Village and directing the defendants 1 to 3 to put the plaintiffs in possession of the same; (b) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to render a true and proper account of their management as trustees of the suit temple from the date of their appointment, viz., 14th April, 1959 till this date (date of plaint) and pay plaintiffs for the use of the said temple such amounts as may be found due by them on taking of account.' The basis of this prayer was that the temple belonged to members of Pattusaluvar community exclusively and they alone owned the temple and were worshipping the deities of the temple; it is a private temple which belonged to that community res...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Arunachalam, Proprietor, Rohini Touring Talkies Vs. V. Thandayuth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ137
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the Proprietor of Rohini Touring Talkies, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Board of Revenue in B. P. Rt. No. 6149/L, dated 23rd November, 1967, confirming the orders of the Collector of Dharmapuri in K. Dis. No. 4640/67 G.B. dated 1st August, 1967, issuing a no objection certificate to the first respondent to locate the touring cinema.2. The petitioner is running a touring cinema and he objects to the grant of the no objection certificate to the first respondent on the ground that it is situated within the prohibited distance. The petitioner's cinema is located in S. No. 19 and the first respondent's in S. No. 3. The route for reaching the site of the first respondent from the petitioner's cinema is to proceed north from the petitioner's site, S. No. 17, and at the western extremity of S. No. 17 to cut into S. Nos. 8, 7 and 6 to reach the eastern end of S. Nor 5 and to proceed west along the southern...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Naidu Vs. Krishnaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ477
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. The respondent instituted a suit for redemption of an othi dated 1st November, 1941 executed by him in favour of the appellant over his undivided half share in the property and for partition and separate possession of his half share. In the written statement filed by him, the appellant contended that the name of the respondent was included in the sale deed in respect of the suit property 'benami for name-sake ' and that the othi executed by the respondent arising out of the benami purchase 'did not in any way affect the position' and hence the respondent was not entitled to any relief.2. The learned District Munsif framed necessary issues and the suit was adjourned from time to time for trial and, when the suit came up for trial on 30th January, 1967, bath parties filed a joint memo. stating that if the respondent took special oath putting out camphor and wearing an arali garland in front of Adisolari Pulukandi Koil stati...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah D.V. Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. First Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR741(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions for certiorari and prohibition raise a question of the constitutional vires of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as it imposes an annual tax in respect of the net wealth, particularly buildings. A further question to be considered is whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is an ex-land holder of the Jaggampeta 'A' and 'D' Estates in the East Godavari District but is now a permanent resident of Madras. He owns, as he says, immovable properties consisting of one compact block of buildings in Mylapore and Royapettah High Road worth Rs. 8,70,505, movable properties in the form of capital in a certain producing concern of the value of Rs. 58,458.79, National Savings Certificates and shares of Rs. 79,700 and bank deposits amounting to Rs. 5,012.19 and owes unsecured loans of Rs. 26,800 and non-business debts of Rs. 45,792.31. For the assessment year 1960-61, he apparently filed on January 25, 1961, a return di...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohamed Salia Lebbai and ors. Vs. Mohamed Hanifa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ87
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These are petitions for a certificate under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution. Our judgment reversed the common judgment of the trial Court in two suits and held that the mosque and its adjuncts' together with the sites as well as the burial ground constituted a public trust. We accepted the trial Court's finding that there had been mismanagement by the defendants. On the view, we remitted the matters to the trial Court for settlement of a scheme of management pursuant to our directions in that Behalf.2. The point debated before us at the Bar is whether our judgment is within the scope of 'any judgment decree or final order ' in Article 133 (1). Both The plaintiffs and the defendants independently ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by different petitions. Nevertheless, the question has been raised. On the one hand the contention is that all the rights of the parties have been determined and that remains to be done by the Court below is to carry out the d...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Motors Private Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR587(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - As similar questions of law are involved in the above three tax cases they have been heard together, though the applicants are different. In Tax Case NO. 80 of 1964, the applicant, a private limited company, is a dealer in motor cars, trucks, jeeps motor parts and accessories, tractors, etc. In Tax Case No. 81 of 1964 the applicant is a private limited company dealing in the purchase and sale of motor spare parts. In Tax Case No. 129 of 1964, the applicant is an engineering contractor. During the year previous to the assessment year 1957-58 the applicants have purchaser plants of varied description and claimed development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended but the Finance Act, 1955(XV of 1955). In particular, the claim for rebate was made but the respective applicants as under : Applicant in Tax Cases No. 80 of 1964 in respect of (1) electric fans, (2) bicycles,(3) motor cycles, (4) office cars,(5) jeeps, (6) tractors, (7) typew...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Pillai Vs. T.M. Srinivasa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad172
Ismail, J.1. These four appeals raise a common question. S. A. No. 1557 of 1965 is filed by the respondents in S. A. 1357 of 1965 to the extent to which the decisions of the courts below went against them.2. The short facts, the narration of which is necessary for the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, are that the village of Mathi in Tanjore Dt. is an estate to which the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 and the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 applied; but not the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. The respondents to the first three appeals claimed that the lands with reference to which they filed the present suit for recovery of rent were private lands. It is the common case of the parties that a notification under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act 1947 was made by the Government fixing reduced rates of rent for ryoti lands in the village of Mathi. However, the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Ren...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad305
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. This is an application to consider all the contentions raised in W. P. No. 1032 of 1964 and review my judgment dated 9-1-1967. That writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent (State of Madras represented by the Secretary to the Government, Industries, Labour and Co-operation Department) and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds viz., that the purpose for which the lands were acquired was not a public purpose, that the declaration was invalid and illegal inasmuch as the lands were already purchased by the petitioner for an industry, that the compulsory requisition of the lands belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of converting the same into an industrial estate was not a public purpose within Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that the reasons given by the second respondent that the extent of l...
Tag this Judgment!D. Satyavel and ors. Vs. Kota Ranga Ramanujiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad434
Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil P. C. for permission to file the suit as paupers. The application was dismissed on the ground that prima facie the appellants had no cause of action. Evidently the learned judge meant to reject the application under Order 33, Rule 5 (d) which says that the Court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper where the allegations do not show a cause of action But the learned Judge overlooked that for this purpose what mattered were only the allegations in the application. Unless the allegations themselves do not show at cause of action, the learned judge was not justified in dismissing the application. It is true that Order 33, Rules 6 and 7 provide that, even where the Court itself does not reject the application under Order 33, Rule 5, it can still reject the application on...
Tag this Judgment!Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Special Tahsil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ273
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J. 1. This is an application to consider all the contentions raised in W.P. No. 1032 of 1964 and review my judgment dated 9th January, 1967. That writ petition Was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the second respondent (State of Madras represented- by the Secretary to the Government, Industries, Labour and Go-operation Department) and the declaration under Section 6 (1)of the Land Acquisition Act on various grounds, viz., that the purpose for which the lands Were acquired was not a public purpose, that the declaration Was invalid and illegal inasmuch as the lands were already purchased by the petitioner for an industry, that the compulsory requisition of the lands belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of converting the same into an industrial estate was not a public purpose within Article 31 (2) of the Constitution of India and Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, that the reasons given by the second respondent that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »