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.
The Anamallais Bus Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Aut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ58
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner Anamallais Bus Transports Ltd., Pollachi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order dated 5th September, 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) Udumalpet. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of the points raised for decision in this petition are briefly the following. The route Coimbatore to Udumalpet is 52 miles and 6 furlongs long. Respondent 2, K.K. Palaniswami, was granted on 19th February, 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 tem...
Glamour Saree Museum and Ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers' Co- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ493
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The Courts below have agreed on the scope of Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) of Madras Act XVIII of 1960 that the landlord can take possession if he is net carrying on a particular business in a non-residential building of his own. On that view the Courts below also thought that, since the landlord, which is a cooperative society, was not carrying on the particular business in the premises in Pantheon Road Co-optex Saree Museum it was entitled to an order of eviction. The petitioners who are tenants in No. 188, Mount Road, contest that view and have filed these petitions.2. What persuaded the Courts below to take the view they did was that if the interpretation were otherwise it would be a permanent impediment to the expansion of a landlord's business. They also relied on the words employed by the section.Section 10 (3) (a) (iii) reads:(3) (a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of Clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landl...
Chinnaswami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ195
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. They are brothers. The second defendant purchased the property in question, a small house site of 2 cents, from the owner, the third defendant, under a registered sale deed, Exhibit B-1 dated 20th February, 1956, for a sum of Rs. 80. The Plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration of her title and possession, claiming under a sale deed from the same third defendant Exhibit A-1, dated 21st September, 1957, for Rs. 100. Though that sale deed is after Exhibit B-1, the case of the plaintiff is that as early as on 29th June, 1952, under Exhibit A-2, the third defendant sold the property to her for Rs. 100 and put her in possession, but did not get the sale deed registered. The plaintiff alleges that in 1961 the defendants trespassed into the property and hence the suit.2. The learned District Munsif held that Exhibit A-2, was not genuine. One of the reasons given by him for his conc...
R.M.P.M. Ranganthan Chettiar Vs. A. Annamalai Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1968
Reported in: AIR1968Mad65
Natesan, J. 1. A simple question in the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act arises for consideration in this appeal by the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 54,627-50 due under a security bond executed by defendants 1 to 9 in the suit in favour of one Somasundaram Chettiar, the father of the plaintiff. The tenth defendant to the suit is the son of predeceased daughter of this Somasundaram Chettiar. There is no serious dispute as to the liability for the amount claimed and the only matter seriously put in issue is the claim of the tenth defendant to a one-fourth share in the suit amount under the Hindu Succession Act. The trial Court has upheld his claim and in granting a preliminary decree against defendants 1 to 9 in favour of the plaintiff and the tenth defendant, declared the respective shares in the amount as three-fourth and one-fourth.(2) There is no dispute that Somasundaram Chettiar died as a member of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family leavin...
Sri Navaneethaswaraswami Devasthanam by Its Executive Officer Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ113
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition for certiorari turns on the scope of the Second proviso to Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution of India. This was one of petitions in the batch disposed of by Subbachariar v. State of Madras (1967) 1 M.L.J. 206. But, because the scope of that proviso did not arise in the rest of the petitions, we have considered this petition separately.2. Sellur village of Ekabhogam Mirasu was notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1963. As a result of prolonged litigation, the result of which is to be found in Navanithaswarswami Devasthanam v. Ganapathi (1955) 2 M.L.J. 112, Navanithaswaraswami Devasthanam v. Saminatha Pillai I.L.R. (1958) Mad. 921 : (1958) 2 M.L.J, and A.S. No. 157 of 1957, the Devasthanam took possession of the entirety of the lands comprised in the village. The State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 52 of the Madras Public Trusts Act, 1961, exempted the entire extent from the operation of the Act ...
Sakthi Sugars Limited and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC232(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of cases the only question is whether sugar-cane setts are equatable to sugar-cane and therefore exigible to tax under item 62 in the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. One other common question was raised by the assessees claiming that there can be no levy of sales tax under the Act on the sale of denatured spirit as, according to them, such sales ought to be exempt from sales tax because of the levy of excise duty on such goods under the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937. Regarding the latter common question, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the State of Madras, conceded that no sales tax will be levied on the sale of denatured spirit and therefore it has become unnecessary for us to consider the elaborate arguments addressed at the Bar on this question. The only surviving point, therefore, is whether sugar-cane setts are to be characterised as sugar-cane and whether sale of sugar-cane setts as such can be sub...
In Re: Kavundiappa Gaundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1968
Reported in: 1970CriLJ547
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant, Kavundiappa Goundar who was charged under Section 302, I. P. C. was convicted under Section 304 (Part II) I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo Rule I. for two years by the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Sessions Case No. 173 of 1966.2. The charge against him is that he committed the murder of one Nachimuthu Gounder by stabbing him with a knife at about 4-30 P. M., on 31-7-1966 at Vellala-palayam.3. The prosecution case is briefly this: Deceased Nachimuthu Gounder was residing at Lekkapurampudur and one of his sisters Pavavee was married to the appellant. Another sister, Kannammal (P. W. 4) was married to one Athappan the son of the junior paternal uncle of the appellant. Athappan died about 1 or 11/2 months before the occurrence. The father-in-law and brother-in-law of P. W. 4 refused to give P. W. 4 the share of her husband's properties to which she was entitled. The appellant and Nachimuthu interceded on behalf of P. W. 4 and got her fro...
S. Janakiraman Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Accommodatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ190
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the landlord of premises No. 92, Royapettah High Road. The building was let out to a tutorial College from 1960 to 1964. The tenant vacated the premises on 1st April, 1964 and the petitioner occupied the building for his residence. On 21st September, 1965 the petitioner informed the Accommodation Controller that he had vacated his premises 92, Royapettah High Road on 15th September, 1965. He also stated that he desired to let out the building for non-residential purposes to the Director, Coaxial Cable project, Ordinance Lines, 2nd respondent in this petition, on a monthly rental of Rs. 950. The Accommodation Controller was asked to accord his permission. On 27th September, 1965 the Accommodation Controller issued an order under Section 3 (3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, informing the petitioner that the premises was required for Governmental purposes and the premises should not be occupied by the landlord...