Chennai Court July 1968 Judgments
K.M. Wahi and ors. Vs. Madras Aluminium Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ589
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the charges framed against the petitioners in C.C.No. 487 of 1967 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore.2. There are no merits in this petition and the same has to be dismissed. On this view, it will not be necessary to set out in detail either the facts of the case or the discussion in respect of them.3. Sri V. T. Rangaswami Iyengar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has requested that in case the petition has to be dismissed, the matter need not be discussed in detail lest any observation made in the order might cause embarrassment to the parties concerned in the course of the trial. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings pending before the lower Court.4. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in R. P. Kapur v. State of Panjab : 1960CriLJ1239 , that the inherent jurisdiction of the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiammal Vs. Sivakamu Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ626
M. Natesan, J. 1. The second appeal and civil revision petition arise out of a suit in ejectment filed by the respondent before the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The defendant in the suit, who is the appellant in the second appeal and petitioner in the civil revision petition, in defence, claimed the benefits conferred on a tenant of land under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (III of 1922) and, by LA. No. 855 of 1961, applied under Section 9 of the Act for purchase of the plaintiff's right in the suit land. The decree in ejectment granted and dismissal of the application under the Act by the trial Court were confirmed on appeal by the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The second appeal is directed against the decree in the suit and the civil revision petition is from the order of dismissal of the appeal against the trial Court's Order in LA. No. 855 of 1961.2. There is no dispute about the title of the plaintiff to the suit plot No. 6, Dr. Nair Road...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvengadam Vs. Muthu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad34
Veeraswami, Offg. C.J.1. This Appeal arises from an order of Kailasam, J., dismissing in limine the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of the State Government, dated 16th November, 1967 granting to the first respondent a permit under Section 5 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958, read with the Government of India Notification G. S. R. 512, dated 22nd April, 1959 for establishing a new rice mill at Enadhi Village, Pattukotiai Taluk. The first respondent applied for a permit on 8th November, 1966, the site was approved on 10th January. 1967 and it would appear that the Panchayat Union Council gave its permission for granting of a licence on 13th March. 1967. The permit issued to the first respondent prescribed a period within which he should establish the rice mill.It is stated that since then the first respondent has put up the construction and installed a mill thereby incurring a heavy expenditure. The appellant representing a local temple ...
Tag this Judgment!Ama Stores Represented by Its Partner M.T.M. Abubacker Vs. Collector o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad148
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The Petitioner, Ama Stores, represented by its partner M. T. M. Abubacker, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing respectively the orders of the Collector or Madras, the 1st Respondent, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Prohibition, Excise and Settlement of Estates, Board of Revenue, Madras, the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner contended that a certain, document executed by him on 25-10-1963 was an agreement, which merely recited the facts of an alreadycompleted sale and also the conditions under which the sale took place. Hence he pleaded that it would suffice, for the purpose of paying the appropriate court-fee under the Stamp Manual, if the document was stamped as an agreement, for which the duty payable is Rs. 2 1/4. This was the duty actually paid on, the document, viz., Rs. 2 1/4. The petitioner had to bring this agreement before the Registrar of Trade Marks for t...
Tag this Judgment!Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR359(Mad)
Veeraswami, Offg. C.J.1. These are references under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessees are different, but because common points arise they have been heard together. In Tax Case No. 49 of 1964, the questions for decision are :' 1. Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction in the computation of the net wealth in the assessment for the year 1957-58 of a sum of Rs. 34,15,086 as a deduction under Section 7(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, being the difference between the book value and the written down value of the buildings, plant and machinery, as on the valuation date June 30, 1956 ? 2. Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 8,07,852, being the liability for payment of tax ' 2. In the other reference the questions are :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessees were not entitled to a deduction in the computation of their net wealth for the assessment for 1958-59 of a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ama Stores Represented by Its Partner M.T.M. Abubacker Vs. the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ418
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner Ama Stores, represented by its partner M.T.M. Abubacker, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing respectively the orders of the Collector of Madras, the 1st Respondent, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Prohibition, Excise and Settlement of Estates, Board of Revenue, Madras, the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner contended that a certain document executed by him on 25th October, 1963, was an agreement, which merely recited the facts of an already completed sale and also the conditions under which the sale took place. Hence he pleaded that it would suffice, for the purpose of paying the appropriate Court-fee under the Stamp Manual, if the document was stamped as an agreement, for which the duty payable is Rs. 21/4. This was the duty actually paid on the document, viz., Rs. 2 1/4. The petitioner had to bring this agreement before the Registrar of Trade Marks ...
Tag this Judgment!Sinna Ponnu and ors. Vs. Singaru Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ358
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. The first plaintiff, since dead and represented by his heirs, plaintiffs 2 to 6, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) entered into an agreement with the 1st defendant for the purchase of a house and site in Mayuram, under an agreement, Exhibit A-1 dated 19th March, 1960 executed by the first defendant for a price of Rs. 1,000. On 9th September, 1961, the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,900. Notices passed between the parties in which the plaintiff's claim was denied and the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of the agreement, Exhibit A-1.2. The first defendant resisted the suit on the ground inter alia that the agreement of sale is vague, that there was no consensus ad idem between the parties as to the exact extent to be sold, that subsequent to the agreement of sale, the plaintiff gave up his rights and that only thereafter the property was sold to the second defendant. The latter, while a...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Razack Sahib Vs. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad14; 1970CriLJ55
1. This appeal has been filed under Letters Patent from an order of committal of the respondent for contempt in a pending civil revision petition in this Court. The civil revision petition arises out of proceedings under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (Act 25 of 1958) and has been preferred bv the legal representatives of the landlord on the dismissal of a petition for eviction of the tenant, on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The contention in the civil revision petition appears to be that the Revenue Court erroneously went into the question of title and reiected the petition for eviction. The revision petitioners moved this Court in C. M. P. No. 5345 of 1965 for a direction to the respondent therein the appellant before us, to deposit into Court the arrears of rent to the credit of T. P. No. 2 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the Ex-officio First Class Magistrate, Tirupattur, for the prior four years at the rate of Rs. 226.37 per year and future...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Rajeswari Bus Service, Vridhachalam Vs. Regional Transport Au ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad458; (1969)1MLJ201
1. The two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the connected Writ Appeal directed against an interlocutory order in W.P. No. 1055 of 1968 vacating the interim stay granted before notice, relate to the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Madampoondi to Ulundurpet (Via) La-Gudalur, Rishivandiam, etc. By a notification dated 16-12-1967, the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, invited applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route. There were three applicants, for the route in question, the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions being one. On 12-1-1968 the applications were duly notified' under Section 57(3) and 8-2-1968 was fixed as the date, on or before which representations in connection with the applications should be submitted furnishing copies thereof simultaneously to the applicants. The applications with representations were originally scheduled to be taken up for consideration o...
Tag this Judgment!The Rt. Rev. George Devadoss and anr. Vs. Luke D. Asirvatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ612
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. 1. This petition has been filed to quash the charge and the proceedings in C.C. No. 36 of 1966 against the petitioners on the file of the Court of the Additional First Glass Magistrate No. 1, Madurai, on the grounds that no offence has been made out on the evidence placed before the Court and that the process of law has been abused by the complainant.2. The relevant facts for the appreciation of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners disclosed in the affidavit filed by the petitioners are briefly these : The first petitioner, Rt. Rev. George Devadoss is the Bishop of Madurai-Ramnad Diocese. The second petitioner, G. G. Joshua was Treasurer, Cyclone Relief Committee of the Madurai-Ramnad Diocese. The Diocese is managed by the Executive Committee which administers all the funds of the Diocese and P.W. 5 Devaprakasam, during the relevant period, was the Secretary. Different standing committees are constituted, of which one is the E...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »