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.
A. Punna Rao Vs. R. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ295
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. An interesting question has arisen in this petition regarding the interpretation of the First Proviso to Section 10(3)(iii)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Madras Act XVIII of 1960). Section 10(3)(a)(iii)(c) deals With the right of a landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant occupying any portion of the building in which he is himself an occupant to put him in possession thereof if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of business which he is carrying or as the case may be. The section also makes it clear that the occupancy of the landlord may be either for residential or non-residential purposes and it provides him with the right notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10(3)(a). The proviso to Section 10(3)(iii)(c) runs as follows:Provided that, in the case of an application under Clause (c...
Al.Ct. Alagappa Chettiar, Hereditary Trustee of Sree Uchinathaswami De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ310
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Uchinathaswami Devasthanam, Sivapuri, Chidambaram Taluk, South Arcot 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:2. The temple of which the petitioner is the hereditary trustee, owns several lands which include 1 acre 61 cents comprised in R. S. Nos. 217/1, and 217/2 in Thiruvetkalam 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 ...
Subbammal Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary, Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ190
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J. 1. An interesting question of law arises in this Writ Petition namely whether the Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of S. No. 36/2 in Kangaranandal Village, Polur Taluk, become void on the simple ground that the Government did not contribute even a proverbial pie in order to pay compensation, from and out of the public revenues as declared in their declaration under Section 6, dated 20th November, 1953.2. The petitioner possessed two small properties, namely, 74 cents of wet land in S. No. 149/2 and 1.74 acres of dry land in S. No. 36/2. The Government sought to acquire an extent of 50 cents of land from and out of S. No. 36/2 to provide quarters to seven Koravars, on applications filed by them to acquire these lands for their residential purposes and they undertook to pay the entire compensation in respect of the lands sought to be acquired. Accordingly the seven Koravars deposited into the Treasury a sum of Rs. 630.83 on 1st June, 1963 at the rate of Rs. ...
Fraser and Ross, Chartered Accountants Vs. Sambasiva Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad134; [1968]68ITR279(Mad); (1968)ILLJ682Mad
Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. A question of considerable interest and importance, in the domain of Industrial Law, arises in this proceeding, namely, whether a Firm of Chartered Accountants and Auditors, a registered partnership which is conducting this profession, will be an 'industry' within the scope of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter arises for our determination, in the following context of facts. Messrs. Fraser and Ross (writ-petitioners) had employed the first respondent, (V. Sambasiva Ayvar) as a stenographer in the Firm, and, under the Rules relating to his service, he was to be retired in February, 1963, when he would have attained the age of superannuation. We need not now concern ourselves with the minute particulars, but it may be noted that the first respondent was permitted to avail himself of earned leave from 1-2-1963 to 31-5-1963, and that he finally retired on 1-6-1963. He made a claim that he ought to be continued in service till the completion of h...
Pakkle and ors. Vs. P. Aiyasami Ganapathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad351
1. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Pottalkadu to restrain the defendants from laying salt pane in the bed of the suit tank thereby making the water in it useless to the people for bathing and taking drinking water. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs are not the representatives of Pottalkadu village, that the suit land is not a tank, that only during the rainy season there used to be stagnation of water in the pits, that the villagers used to take water from another tank, that there are salt pans all round the suit land, and that the suit land is fit only for raising salt pans and that there is no drinking water in that locality. The trial court held that some of the villagers used to take water from the suit tank, that the cattle also used to drink water from it and that the villagers used to take bath and wash their cattle therein. All the same, it took the view that as during the past about t...
P.S.S. Bommanna Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR26(Mad)
Ramaprasad Rao, J.1. Tax Case No. 59 of 1962 is in relation to the assessment made by the revenue under Section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the assessee and relates to the assessment years 1943-44 to 1947-48. Tax Case No. 206 of 1965 also relates to the same period, but concerns itself with the legality and propriety of the penalty levied on the assessee under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, in each of the cases as above, submitted independent questions for being answered by this court. The relevant facts are as follows :The assessee was assessed as a Hindu undivided family. The assessee was mainly dealing in yarn and was manufacturing silk sarees as well. Assessments for the years under review were made under Section 23(3) of the Act. On written information furnished by the assessee's pleader, one Mr. Ramamurti Iyer, that silver bars of the assessee were kept in his house for some time and that such property belonged to the assessee, action was taken by the In...
Fraser and Ross, Chartered Accountants Vs. Sambasiva Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ361
ORDERM. Ananthanarayanan, C.J.1. A question of considerable interest and importance in the domain of Industrial Law, arises in this proceeding, namely, whether a Firm of Chartered Accountants and Auditors, a registered partnership which is conducting this profession, will be an 'industry' within the scope of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The matter arises for our determination, in the following context of facts. Messrs Fraser and Ross (writ petitioners) had employed the first respondent (V. Sambasiva Ayyar) as a stenographer in the Firm, and, under the Rules relating to his service, he was to be retired in February, 1963, when he would have attained the age of superannuation. We need not now concern ourselves with the minute particulars, but it may be noted (hat the first respondent was permitted to avail himself of earned leave from 1st February, 1963 to 31st May. 1963, and that he finally retired on 1st June, 1963. He made a claim that he ought to be continued in servi...
Sri Booman Alias Parakalam Pillai Vs. Kuppammal Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ36
Ismail, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S. No. 309 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Nagapattinam for partition and separate possession of their 3/4 share in the suit property which itself is one half of a dwelling house. The third respondent to the present appeal was the first defendant in the suit and one Amirthalingam Pillai was the second defendant. After the death of the said Amirthalingam Pillai, during the pendency of the suit, his widow and children were brought on record as defendants 3 to 6. In that suit a preliminary decree for partition was passed on I4th December, 1960. On 9th March 1061 one Booman alias Parakalam Pillai purchased the share of defendants 3 to 6 in the suit property. On 13th June, 1962, on an application made by him the said Booman alias Parakalam Pillai was added as the seventh defendant to the suit. The said order was challenged on appeal and the appeal was dismissed on 11th March 1963. A civil revision petition filed to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›