Chennai Court April 1968 Judgments
M. Rodgers Vs. M. Prakash Rao Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ332
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by a tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted at the instance of the landlord in pursuance of an order in H.R.A. No. 708 of 1966 filed by the landlord against the dismissal of his application for eviction of the tenant by the learned Rent Controller. The eviction was sought for on two grounds, wilful default in payment of rent and subletting. The Rent Controller found against the landlord on both the grounds. But the learned appellate Judge has taken a different view on both the grounds. As any one of the grounds is sufficient to justify the order of eviction, I shall confine myself to the grounds regarding subletting. Admittedly, the building is a business premises. The tenant has got his machinery there. He was running some journals previously and now he has stopped running them. There is one Ambika Litho Press there now which is being run by one Narayanan, who was previou...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sheik Abubaker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ824
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.N. 8125 of 1967 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate No. 1, Tiruchirapalli. They were convicted under Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and further a sum of Rs. 49,750 alleged to have been seized from them was confiscated. On appeal, the learned District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The short point that arises in this revision petition is whether the conviction under Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act could be sustained on the facts of this case. It is, there, fore, necessary to briefly note the facts of the prosecution case P.W. 3, the Inspector of Police, Tiruchirapalli town, on information, raided the house bearing door No. 24 Bharatbi St, in East Bouleward Road, Tiruchirapalli at about 4-80 p.m. in the presence of P.W. 2 Narayanan and another. P.W. 3 found the petitioners in possession of a trunk box (M.O. ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Guruswami Nadar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Natesa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ488
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The legal representatives of a chief tenant aggrieved by the order of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who directed that one other party apart from the petitioners on record should be impleaded to the proceedings as a legal representative of the deceased chief tenant, have filed this Civil Revision Petition canvassing the propriety and correctness of the same. One A. V. Guruswamy Nadar is admittedly the chief tenant of the premises in question. The respondent is his tenant. The chief tenant secured an order of eviction in H. R. G. No. 1544 of 1961 which was sustained in appeal. There were ancillary civil proceedings questioning the correctness of the eviction order passed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Such civil proceedings also proved unsuccessful in so far as the respondent is concerned. During this protracted period, when the chief tenant was confronted with various proceedings, one or the other, filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Batcha Saheb Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority North Arco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad223
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. The problem presented in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution is the interesting one of the vires of Rule 134-A (xi) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, which has been made by virtue of the power to frame Rules, under Section 68 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. We have had the benefit of arguments addressed to full length on this specific issue, and the available precedents and pasages in standard treatises on the ambit of Delegated Legislation, have also been placed before us. 2. It is very important at the outset itself, to note the particular form that the Rule has taken, in the light of certain relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The most important of those is Section 60 (1) of the Act, together with its Sub-clauses (a) to (f). Since this scheme has to be kept in mind, throughout, in dealing with the main issue that was argued, I am setting forth the sub-section in entire text here below:-- '60 (1). The Transport Authority...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rajendran Vs. the Revenue Divisional and Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ302
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by one N. Rajendran for the issue of writs of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution under circumstances which can be set down briefly as follows:2. The petitioner is the owner of certain lands situated in Allampatti Village and Kottaipatti Village, Virudhunagar, which were acquired for the construction of the Government Hospital at Virudhunagar. Two awards Were passed, Award Nos. 13 and 14 of 1963 on the same date, namely, 31st December, 1963. The petitioner received the notices dated 22nd February, 1964 of the awards under Section 12.(2) of the Land Acquisition Act in both the cases on 24th February, 1964. Six weeks time from the date of receipt of the notices is provided in the statute for a party aggrieved with the quantum of compensation to apply to the Collector to make a reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner's strenuous contention in the affidavits in both the petitions is that he...
Tag this Judgment!Vadamalai Pillai Vs. Munuswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ166
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The question in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether the District Munsif, acting under Section 73 of the Madras Village Courts Act, is a Court to which the Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable, in particular Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Village Court which granted to him an ex parte decree. The respondent filed an original petition before the District Munsif having jurisdiction to set it aside. On the day the matter was posted for hearing, the petitioner was absent with the result the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit stood dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, with an application to excuse the delay in filing it. The Munsif disposed of the main application on the ground that he had no power to set aside his ex parte order. In his view, Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the proceeding. On that view, he dismissed both t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pattabhiraman Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1971Mad61
ORDER:--137. By virtue of the opinions of the majority of the full Bench, Section 6 of Madras Act XII of 1966 must be struck down, as violative of Articles 19(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India. It follows that all the proceedings before us under Article 226 of the Constitution will have to be allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.138. Petitions allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappa Gounder and anr. Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad187
Ismail, J.1. The two defendants in O. S. No. 357 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Erode are the appellants before this Court and the plaintiff in the suit is the sole respondent. The respondent's husband Perianna Gounder and the first appellant were brothers and the second appellant is their sister. Perianna Gounder died in 1944. Subsequent to his death on August 16, 1944, Periathambi Gounder, father-in-law of the respondent and the father of the deceased Perianna Gounder and the appellants, executed a document described as a maintenance deed in favour of the respondent in respect of two items of property.That document recited that when the respondent requested her father-in-law to give her maintenance, at the instance of mediators, he executed the said document. The document also stated that she should reside in one of the items which was a house and should cultivate at her pleasure the other item which was a piece of land and enjoy the income therefrom for h...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswami Reddiar and anr. Vs. Venkatakrishna Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad84
Ismail, J.1. In O. S. No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Chingleput, a suit for partition, a compromise decree was passed between the parties on 21st January, 1963. Under the terms of the compromise, the respondent was to give up all his claims to the property in suit, but to receive a sum of Rs, 70,000/-, from the appellants herein. The compromise decree itself stated that a sum of Rs. 25,000 had been paid to the respondent on the date of decree and the balance of Rs. 45,000 should be paid within one year's time, that is, on or before 21st January. 1964, time being the essence of the compromise.A further provision in this behalf was that the said sum of Rs. 45,000 or so much of it as remained unpaid by that time would thereafter carry interest at six per cent per annum. This sum of Rs. 45,000 was payable by the appellants herein on or before 21st January, 1964. The amount was actually deposited into Court only on 21st July, 1965. It is under these circu...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Madras Vs. Rathan Singh and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ156Mad
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, for the issue of writs of certiorari calling for the records of the labour court in C.P. Nos. 459 and 460 of 1966 and to quash its order dated 27 July 1966, directing payment of house-rent allowance to respondent 1 in each of these petitions. Both these respondents who are employees' of the Corporation of Madras filed two Claim petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court. Both the petitions were taken up and disposed of together by the labour court, Rathan Singh, respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 109 of 1967, and Ethiraj, respondent 1 in Writ Petition No. 110 of 1967, were both appointed by order dated 12 July 1958, as boat syrang and watchman respectively by the Corporation. As per the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the Corporation employees, including these two respondents, are entitled to the house-rent allowance. But the plea of the Corpor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »