Chennai Court November 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.
Adam Ibrahim Sait Vs. A. Simruthmall and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad107
1. The petitioner sued for a declaration that the two sale deeds which he had executed in favour of the first defendant were meant only as security for a loan of a specified sum and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, after taking an account of the receipts from the hypotheca, and setting off these against the considerations for the mortgages and for passing a decree for the surplus receipts. The execution of the two documents has been admitted. But the petitioner's case was that they were intended to operate only as securities and there were lease deeds in favour of the first defendant covering the suit properties and agreements to reconvey them to the plaintiff. In effect, the suit is one for redemption of a mortgage and for accounts. The Court below considered that the plaint impliedly asked for cancellation of the two sale deeds and directed payment of Court-fee on that basis. It also directed the petitioner to pay Court-fee on the relief for accounting un...
Adam Ibrahim Sait Vs. K. Simruthmall and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ151
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner sued for a declaration that the two sale deeds which he had executed in favour of the first defendant were meant only as security for a loan of a specified sum and for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties, after taking an account of the receipts from the hypotheca, and setting off these against the considerations for the mortgages and for passing a decree for the surplus receipts. The execution of the two documents has been admitted. But the petitioner's case was that they were intended to operate only as securities and there were lease deeds in favour of the first defendant covering the suit properties and agreements to reconvey them to the plaintiff. In effect, the suit is one for redemption of a mortgage and for accounts. The Court below considered that the plaint impliedly asked for cancellation of the two sale deeds and directed payment of Court-fee on that basis. It also directed the petitioner to pay Court-fee on the relief ...
V.C. Desa Bathudu Vs. P. Dilli Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ635
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J. 1. This is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, as the sole heir of Eswari Ammal, is entitled to her estate consisting of the properties movable and immovable described in plaint' A ' and ' B ' Schedules respectively, for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the immovable properties described in plaint ' A' schedule, for a direction to defendants 1 to 5 to deliver possession of the movable properties described in plaint ' B ' schedule and for future mesne profits of the properties described in plaint' A ' schedule.2. The plaintiff is the brother of one Eswari Ammal, who died on 27th December, 1965, intestate and with no children, while defendants 1 to 3 are the sons and daughters of one Purushothama Asari, another brother of Eswari Ammal who died in 1961 and defendants 4 and 5 are the widow and daughter of Doraiswami Asari yet another brother of Eswari Ammal who died in 1950. The other defendants are said to be tenants in possession of the...
Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Rly. Represented by the Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad108
Sadasivam, J.1. The Union of India owning the Southern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Madras, has preferred these appeals against the common judgment in O. S. Nos. 5 of 1959 and 56 of 1960, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, decreeing the claim for damages made by the plaintiff (in each of the suits). It is an undisputed fact that the respondent in each of the appeals consigned beedi parcels with the appellant-railway on 17th September, 1957 for being transported to Colombo and that the goods were drenched by water and damaged oa 17th September, 1957, the very day on which they were loaded on the ship 'S. S. Irwin' belonging to the appellant-railway. The learned Subordinate Judge Tirunelveli, negatived the pleas put forward by the appellant and decreed? the suits for damages.2. Sri S. K. L. Ratan appearing for the appellant in these appeals argued the appeals mainly on the question of limitation and also to some extent on the question whether there...
Ramakrishna Reddiar Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ197
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a member of the Governing Body of the Acharapakkam Co-operative Supervising Union against the order of the Deputy Registrar, holding that the petitioner had incurred the disqualification referred to in Section 28 (2) (a) read with Section 28 (1) (b) (i) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act and directing his removal from membership of the Governing Body of the Acharapakkam Co-operative Supervising Union.2. The petitioner borrowed from Acharapakkam Rural Bank two amounts of Its. 1,000 which were payable on 30th April, 1967 and 8th October, 1967. The amounts were due for more than three months, and were paid on 18th January, 1968 and 23rd January, 1968. On a communication from another member of the Governing Body, the Deputy Registrar, issued a notice on 23rd May, 1968 to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be removed from membership of the Governing Body of the Supervising Union. The petitioner gave an explanation on 18th ...
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Railway, Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ514
K. Sadasivam, J.1. The Union of India owning the Southern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Madras, has preferred these appeals against the common judgment in O.S. Nos. 5 of 1959 and 56 of 1960, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, decreeing the claim for damages made by the plaintiff (in each of the suits). It is an undisputed fact that the respondent in each of the' appeals consigned beedi parcels with the appellant-railway on 7th September, 1957 for being transported to Colombo and that the goods were drenched by water and damaged on 17th September, 1957, the very day on which they were loaded on the ship 'S.S. Irwin' belonging to the appellant-railway. The learned Subordinate Judge Tirunelveli, negatived the pleas put forward by the appellant and decreed the suits for damages.2. Sri S. K. L. Ratan appearing for the appellant in these appeals argued the appeals mainly on the question of limitation and also to some extent on the question whether there...
Indian Insurance Companies' Association Pool Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC79(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The common petitioner which is the Indian Insurance Companies' Association Pool, Madras, seeks prohibition forbidding the respondents from proceeding further to the notice of the first of them, with a view to assess sales of salvage to tax. The petitions cover 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The pool was brought about by an agreement to which several registered companies doing general insurance business were parties. In the assessment years, the petitioner is stated to have effected through Murray & Company, Public Auctioneers, sales of goods coming into their hands by way of salvage, in the course of carrying on their business in general insurance and it is said that Murray & Company also collected sales tax which had been remitted to the revenue. But being called upon to produce the accounts and to register itself as a dealer by the revenue, the petitioner has moved this Court, for the relief we mentioned on the ground that the petitioner is not a dealer and the sales ...
Parasmal Chordia Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad47
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissing an application of the petitioner made under Order 8-A, Rule 1, Civil P. C. The suit was laid on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant who is the petitioner, on 21-6-1964. He resisted the suit on the ground that the promissory note was not supported by consideration, and also maintained that the plaintiffs son had executed an agreement or varthamanam of 4-7-1964, admitting that the promissory note was not supported by consideration and that, in case, it was successfully enforced, he would indemnify the defendant. Evidently, on the basis of the last averment, the defendant took out the application under Order 8-A for third party notice to the son of the plaintiff. The application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, by placing reliance on Uthaman Chettiar v. Thiagaraia Filial, 68 Mad LW 810 : AIR 1956 Mad 155 Panchapakesa Ayyar. J. was of the view, ...
Anamalais Bus Transports (P.) Ltd., Pollachi Vs. Regional Transport Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad41
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner Anamalais Bus Transports Ltd., Pollachi has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, to quash the order dated 5-9-1968 made by the 1st respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, granting a temporary permit to the 2nd respondent for the route Coimbatore to Madathukulam (via) Udamalpet. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of the points raised for decision in this petition are briefly the following. The route Coimbatore to Udamalpet is 52 miles and 6 furlongs long. Respondent 2, K. K. Palaniswami, was granted on 19-2-1968 by the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, a temporary permit for this route valid for four months under the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner had applied subsequent to the notification for the grant of the temporary permit for the above route for a permanent permit for the same route. Aggrieved against the order granting a temporary permit to respon...
B. Susila and anr. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad357
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated 21-4-1965, dismissing E; A. No. 297 of 1964 in O. S. 107 of 1953. The said E. A. itself was filed by supplemental defendants 3 and 4 in 9. Section 107 of 1953, under Order 21, Rule 96, Civil P. C., for setting aside a sale of the house property sold in execution of the decree passed against them in O. S. No. 107 of 1953 on 19-6-1963. The sale was knocked down in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000, on 19-6-1963 and the application was filed on 17-7-1963. In the said application, the appellants herein had taken the following three grounds for the purpose of setting aside the sale: (1) due notice of the execution or of the application to reduce the upset price has not been served on the petitioners; (2) the property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price inasmuch as the decree-holder has been able to knock off the property for a price which ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »