Chennai Court December 1968 Judgments
G. Natarajan Vs. P. Thandavarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ19
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. It is common ground that the petitioner secured the suit premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on the business of hoteliering and the petitioner for the purposes of his trade was, in occupation of the property adjacent to the suit premises as well. The landlord found that the tenant had drilled a hole 3' in diameter in the terrace portion of the main building and also removed a portion of the parapet wall on the terrace of the building to a length 2' x 3' or 3 1/2. Characterising such acts of the tenant as acts of waste and also on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent, the respondent filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking for the eviction of the petitioner as tenant in the suit premises. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court found that there was no wilful default and the acts excerpted above cannot be characterised as acts of wast...
Tag this Judgment!Murugappa Kadanthiar Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats-cum-collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ615
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, Murugappa Kadanthiar, is aggrieved against an order dated 6th April, 1966 passed by the first respondent, the Inspector of Pan-chayats-cum-Collector of South Arcot, Cuddalore, declaring, on the strength of a no-confidence resolution passed by the Melur Panchayat, Vridhachalam Taluk, on 29th January, 1966, that the petitioner had ceased to be President of the Panchayat. This order was passed by the first respondent under Section 152 (13) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (Act XXXV of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner's prayer is to quash the above order by a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances.2. The panchayat has got nine members. Six of them, whose names are mentioned in paragraph 2 of the affidavit of the petitioner, had absented themselves for three consecutive panchayat meetings between 1st September, 1965 and 20th December, 1965. Thereby they became subject to the disqualifi...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.S. Ahmed Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Police, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad220; 1970CriLJ1016
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Police and Presidency Magistrate, Madras City directing the return of a conch to the second respondent herein under Section 523, Criminal P. C. The facts of the case are these; The second respondent Amir Mohideen gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, North Beach Police station that the petitioner committed theft of a conch belonging to him. On that complaint the Sub Inspector of Police investigated the matter and examined both the petitioner and the second respondent and ultimately referred the complaint to the first respondent as a mistake of fact. Later the revision petitioner filed a petition under Sections 523, Criminal P. C. before the Commissioner of Police and Presidency Magistrate for the return of the conch. The Commissioner of Police ordered the return of the conch to the second respondent after having considered the facts as disclosed in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Late R. Sridharan by Legal Heirs Mrs. Rosa Marie Stenbchler and Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad249; [1969]73ITR360(Mad)
1. On applications made by the assessee under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and Section 25(1) of the Expenditure Tax Act, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question for our decision:--"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee and his son constituted a Hindu undivided family for purposes of assessment under the Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Expenditure Tax Acts."2. The Tribunal passed a consolidated Order in the appeals against the assessments respectively made under the Income-tax Act and Wealth Tax Act for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 and against the assessment under the Expenditure Tax Act for 1961-62. In all the appeals the Tribunal sustained the assessment made on the assessee in the status of an individual. The assessee late R. Sridharan, was a member of a Hindu undivided family, along with his father and brothers. On a partition between the assessee, his brothers a...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramaswami Goundar Vs. S.T. Murugappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ284
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against an order passed by the Sub-Court, Erode, directing the arrest of the appellant in the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 122 of 1964. The decree that is sought to be executed is for costs decreed in O.S. No. 122 of 1964 as per the judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1967. That decree was against the two respondents in the execution petition, the appellant Ramaswami, and another Kailasam, who are the defendants in O.S. No. 122 of 1964. The appellant owed a large sum of money, about Rs. 41,500 to the respondents herein, who arc bankers. As the appellant Ramaswami alienated his properties, the respondents became apprehensive and obtained an agreement of sale from the appellant dated 18th December, 1962 to sell the house of the appellant to the respondents in discharge of the amounts due to the latter. It is also evidenced by a registered agreement between the parties, dated 27th December, 1962 and the t...
Tag this Judgment!Late R. Sridharan by Legal Heirs Mrs. Rosa Marie Stenbehler and Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ334
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. On applications made by the assessee under Sections 27 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act and Section 25 (1) of the Expenditure-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question for our decision:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee and his son constituted a Hindu undivided family for purposes of assessment under the Income-tax, Wealth-tax and Expenditure-tax Acts.2. The Tribunal passed a consolidated order in the appeals against the assessments respectively made under the Income-tax Act and Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62 and against the assessment under the Expenditure-tax Act for 1961-62. In all the appeals the Tribunal sustained the assessment made on the assessee in the status of an individual. The assessee late R. Sridharan, was a member of a Hindu undivided family, along with his father and brothers. On a partition between the ass...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Venkatachalapathi Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Admn.) Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ437
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioner who is an unsuccessful applicant for the post of a trustee of Sangameswaraswami Temple, Bhavani town, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras relating to the proceedings in D.D. No. 47216/68 dated 16th November, 1968 and R.C. No. 48057/68/A-l dated 21st November, 1968 and to quash the orders appointing respondents 2 to 6 as trustees.2. The petitioner was appointed as one of the five trustees of Sangameswaraswami temple, Bhavani town for a period of five years in the year 1964 by the Area Committee. Subsequently the temple was notified under Section 46 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 as a listed temple. Applications were invited for appointment of trustees in pursuance of the notification under Section 46 of the Act by the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers under Section 47. The petitioner and others applied ...
Tag this Judgment!Marudha Pillai Vs. V.S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ16
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The revision petition is by the defendant in O.S. No. 640 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court of Velangaiman at Kumbakonam against the order of the District Munsif dismissing his petition I.A. No. 1501 of 1968 for the issue of a notice under Order 8-A of the Civil Procedure Code, to a proposed third party. The suit' was for arrears of rent due from the petitioner. The petitioner's case was that he had paid the rent to the plaintiff's brother. After P.W. 1 was examined, the petitioner filed the application which has given rise to this civil revision petition. On behalf of the respondent, it is contended that the dismissal of the petition was correct, because the claim by the petitioner against the respondent's brother is not either for contribution or for indemnity and therefore Order 8-A, Civil Procedure Code, will not apply. Reliance is placed upon a decision of Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J., as he then was, reported in Rangaswami v. Angammal : AIR19...
Tag this Judgment!Chandraleka Vs. P.K. Suseela Rani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ17
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful tenant before the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Madras Act XVIII of 1960, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent landlady filed an. application under Section 10 (3) (a) and sought for the premises in the occupation of the petitioner bona fide for her own use and occupation. The respondent complained also of wilful default, but that was found against her. The only ground which survived and which was indeed canvassed by the parties in the lower Courts was whether the requirement of the respondent was real and bona fide. The petitioner resisted the petition contending that the request of the respondent was not bona fide since portions in the ground floor fell vacant which she did not occupy and therefore her contention is that the petition ought to be dismissed. The tenant's contention in the main was that as and when the down stairs portion of the premises fell vacant, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppa Bai Vs. A. Rajagopal Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ541
M. Natesan, J.1. The second appeal and civil revision petition are by the plaintiff, for vacant possession of land within the limits of the City, for arrears of rent, damages for use and occupation and incidental reliefs, from the 1st defendant in the suit, whose tenancy has been terminated by a notice to quit, and from the 2nd defendant who claimed under the 1st defendant. The land as a vacant site had been leased by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant's husband in 1953. The 1st defendant's husband had put up a superstructure on the land and was running a firewood business there. The first defendant's husband died during his tenancy and the 1st defendant continued in occupation convenanting with the plaintiff for a lease for a period of three years. This agreement for lease between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is found recorded in the unregistered, document Exhibit A-8 dated 26th February, 1956. The earlier lease is also by an unregistered rental agreement between the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »