Chennai Court January 1968 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.
V.P. Periakaruppan Alias Manickam Ambalam Vs. P. Mayalagan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ171
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Both these revision proceedings involve only one short ground in two suits on a negotiable instrument, all the pleas upon which the executants. resisted the decrees of the suits have been negatived on the merits. But, in each of these two suits, the same plaintiff sues under an assignment in his favour, constituting him as an agent for collection, even on a minimal interpretation. It is claimed that the principal was alive, at least when one of the two suits was filed, and the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner claims that the principal was alive on the date of institution of both the suits.2. However that might be, the principal died shortly thereafter. The suits have been dismissed, though they were otherwise entirely justified on the merits. of the findings, on the short point that the agency for collection having come to an end with the death of the principal, the suits were no longer maintainable.3. In my view, this is a quite erroneous concepti...
Samiappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Sivabalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ125
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 against whom the suit was decreed on appeal by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore reversing the dismissal of the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, have preferred this Second Appeal.2. The facts leading up to the second appeal not now in dispute may be briefly set out. The suit properties along with other properties belonged to one Kandaswami Pillai who died in 1923 leaving four sons Sivagurunathan, Chithran, Thirumurthi and Jagadisan by his first wife and three sons Palaniswami, Saravanaperumal and Jagannathan by his second wife. With considerable properties he left also large debts. The eldest son Sivagurunatha as family manager dealt with the properties and incurred further debts. At the instance of a creditor Sivagurunatha was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 43 of 1924 on the file of the District Court, Coimbatore, and on orders of the Court the entire properties of Kandaswami Pillai also vested in the Official Recei...
Gobald Motor Services (P.) Ltd., Mettupalayam Vs. Regional Transport A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad441; (1969)2MLJ574
1. These cases raise a common question, the place of Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the scheme of the Act for the grant of permit for stage carriages. Of the writ appeals, one set of appeals (W. A. 264 of 1967, 285 of 1967 etc), arises from the dismissal of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the respective Regional Transport Authorities from proceeding further in pursuance of Notifications issued under Section 57 (3) of the Act, and the other set of writ appeals (W. A. 327 of 1967, 400 of 1967 etc) have been preferred against the rejection of petitions for interim orders pending applications for the issue of writs of prohibition to similar effect. The connected writ petitions have also been called up for disposal. Having regard to the question that calls for determination, it is needless to deal separately with every one of the petitions and appeals, the substantial purpose of these cases being to secure wri...
Sathiyamurthi Transport Co. Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ383
M. Natesan, J.1. In these writ petitions the short question for consideration is whether an existing operator can prefer an appeal as a person aggrieved under Section 64 (1) (i) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939, from an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3). This question has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Kailasam, J., in view of the decision of this Court in Regional Transport Authority v. Mettupalayam Coonoor Service I.L.R. (1964) 2 Mad. 641 : (1965) 1 M.L.J. 341, In that decision a Division Bench of this Court considered the question whether a revision can be filed against an order passed under Section 47 (3). At the time the decision was given, no appeal was provided from an order under that section. Since then an amendment has been made to Rule 147 of the Motor Vehicles Rules by G.O. Ms. No. 1852, dated 28th May, 1967. The new Sub-rule (2) of Rule 147 runs thus:Under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64, the following orders of...
S.K. Yusuf Sheriff and ors. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ264
M. Natesan, J.1. In these writ petitions the propriety of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Madras State Transport Department pending applications for renewal of the regular permits by private operators in preference to their claim for temporary permits pending renewal of their permits, is called in question. Typical of the circumstances in which these applications come up, we may refer to the facts in W.P. No. 2892 of 1967.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2892 of 1967 whose permit on the route Madras to Vengal was to expire on 1st October, 1967, applied on 5th May, 1967, for renewal of his permit. When the application for renewal was pending, the nationalisation scheme in relation to the route was published on 18th July, 1967, obviously awaiting finalisation of the nationalisation scheme, the renewal application was placed in cold storage and the petitioner came up to this Court with applications--one for a writ ...
M.A. Joseph Vs. Varadarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ234
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed O.S. No. 24 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Juge, Salem, for a decree for specific performance of a contract, dated 23rd April, 1960, for a transfer or release of the 'A' Schedule property, of which it is claimed that the plaintiff was in possession from 5th July, 1963, including the flour mill situate thereon. As the plaint was insufficiently stamped, the petitioner was directed on a check-slip by the Court-fee Examiner to pay an additional Court-fee of Rs. 613. The petitioner thereafter applied, under Order 33, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, in I.A. No. 300 of 1967 in the main suit, for permission to continue the suit in forma pauperis. On the respondent objecting to the said course the lower Court enquired into the pauperism of the petitioner and the other merits in the application and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a pauper as he was running...
Gopala Konar Vs. Subramania Asari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ326
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. The question involved is, whether an appeal lay to the District Court of Tiruchirapalli against the order of the District Munsif of Ariyalur dated 12th November, 1963 in E.A. No. 81 of 1963 in O.S. No. 61 of 1960. The facts are these One Thangamuthu Konar purchased a house for Rs. 500 from one Ponnuswami, Asari and his wife Pappammal on 21st July, 1953. Subramania Asari, son of Ponnuswami Asari, however; claimed the property to be his and sold it to one Paramasiva Udayar. Paraniasiva Udayar removed the superstructure of the house. Thangamuthu Koriar defended his purchase but was unsuccessful. Thereupon, he filed O.S. No. 61 of 1960 for damages for breach of covenant of title contained in the sale deed dated 21st July, 1953. He impleaded Pappammal as the first defendant in that suit, as she was one of the vendors, Ponnuswami Asari was by then dead. Thangamuthu Konar therefore impleaded Subramania Asari (as 2nd respondent) as the legal representative of Ponnu...
Al. Ct. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad133
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Uchinathaswami Devasthanam, Sivapuri, Chidambaram Taluk, South Arcpt District. The respondents are respectively the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chidambaram (Land Acquisition Officer) and the State of Madras, represented by the Secretary for Industries, Labour and Co-operation (Housing) Department. The facts that led up to the present writ petition are briefly the following.The temple of which the petitioner ta the hereditary trustee owns several lands which include 1 acre 61 cents comprised in R. S. Nos. 217/1, and 217/2 in Thiruvet-kulam village. The petitioner alleged that following the procedure outlined in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Section 34, the petitioner on behalf of the temple with a view to augment the income of the temple for meeting its need, applied and got the permission of the authorities under the Act for dividing the said land into 17 plots and selling them in public auctio...
Rama Rao (T.) Vs. Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ583Mad
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a chief clerk in the Southern Railway for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the order of the Divisional Superintendent, Personnel Branch, Southern Railway, dated 3 November 1967, retiring the petitioner from service on three months' notice, and quashing the said order. The impugned order of retirement, dated 3 November 1967, may be extracted:You have attained the age of 55 years on 12 July 1966 (afternoon). It has been decided by Dy. C.C.S,/Gen./Mas. to retire you from railway service on three months' notice.You are allowed to avail 21 days' leave on average pay and 404 days' leave on half-average pay for which you are eligible from 7 November 1967. This leave and the period of notice will run concurrently. You will be treated as having retired from railway with effect from 4 January 1969 afternoon.Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code regulates the age of retirement of railway servan...
T. Rama Rao Vs. the Divisional Superintendent, Divisional Office, Pers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ394
ORDERP. S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a Chief Clerk in the Southern Railway for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the order of the Divisional Superintendent, Personnel Branch, Southern Railway, dated 3rd November, 1967, retiring the petitioner from service on three months notice, and quashing the said order. The impugned order of retirement dated 3rd November, 1967, may be extracted.You have attained the age of 55 years on 12th July, 1966 (A.N.) It has been decided by Dy. C.C.S./Gen./Mas to retire you from Railway Service on three months notice.You are allowed to avail 21 days L.A.P. and 404 days L.H.A.P. for which you are eligible from 7th November, 1967. This leave and the period of notice will run concurrently. You will be treated as having retired from Railway with effect from 4th January, 1959 (A.N.)Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code regulates the age of retirement of railway servants. Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) provide...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »