Chennai Court January 1969 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.
Mohamed Mansour Vs. N. Abdul Cader Alias Ibrahim and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad510
Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Though these special appeals instituted by virtue of our Jurisdiction over the Tribunals at Pondicherry, involve only a short preliminary issue, the matter is not without some degree of interest. Very briefly stated, the appeals before us are by the second wife and her son of a certain Abdul Hamid (deceased) who was a partner in a firm with extensive transactions. As will be clear from the judgment of the Superior Court of appeal at Pondicherry, the action related to the alleged purchase of certain sovereigns made in May 1950, and it was established that the funds realised by this, namely, 873,000 paistres, had been paid to the Saigon shop, after advance deductions in the account of the shop at Hanoi.2. Upon the facts of this alleged claim, which was, basically, a claim that the moneys of this transaction had been fraudulently suppressed in the liquidation proceeding admittedly homologated by the Court at Hanoi, the Tribunal of First Instance (Commerce) at Pondi...
O.N. Muthu Ramalingam and anr. Vs. T.M. Sembuselli Gounder, Member, Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ243
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two writ petitions deal with a common matter. That is why they were heard together. The occasion, which led to the filing of the writ petitions, is the proceeding for election of the Executive Committee of the Bhavani Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, which is a body admittedly governed by the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. According to the affidavits of the petitioners, the Executive Committee as well as the President elected under the provisions of the previous Co-operative Societies Act, 1934 were functioning till June, 1966. Then for the first time the provisions of the new Co-operative Societies Act LIII of 1961, had to be applied for election of all the members of the Executive Committee including the President. Besides the main provisions of the Act there are also an elaborate set of Rules under the aforesaid Act issued by the Government from time to time. Chapter V of the Rules contains detailed provisions for the conduct of ele...
Mohamed Mansour and ors. Vs. N. Abdul Cader Alias Ibrahim and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ449
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Though these special appeals instituted by virtue of our jurisdiction over the Tribunals at Pondicherry, involve only a short preliminary issue, the matter is not without some degree of interest. Very briefly stated, the appeals before us are by the second wife and her son of a certain Abdul Hamid (deceased), who was a partner in a firm with extensive transactions. As will be clear from the judgment of the Superior Court of Appeal at Pondicherry, the action related to the alleged purchase of certain sovereigns made in May, 1950, and it was established that the funds realised by this, namely, 873,000 piastres had been paid to the Saigon shop, after advance deductions in the account of the shop at Hanoi.2. Upon the facts of this alleged claim, which was, basically, a claim that the moneys of this transaction had been fraudulently suppressed in the Liquidation Proceeding admittedly homologated by the Court at Hanoi, the Tribunal of First Instance (Commerce) at P...
R. Lakshminarayanan Vs. V.A. Maruthappa Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad136
1. The short question for consideration by the Full Bench in this batch of writ appeals is, whether a licensee of an existing rice mill has locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for the establishment of a new rice mill in the locality, under the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, XXI of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeals have been preferred from the dismissal of petitions for certiorari on the ground that an existing rice mill owner is not a person aggrieved by the grant of permit to another and has no standing to apply for certiorari. In Kuppuswami Pillai v. The State of Madras W.P. Nos. 2332 of 1966 etc., Kailasam J., observed that the mere fact that a person who has a mill in close proximity to the one to which licence has been granted is likely to suffer financial loss is not sufficient to make him an aggrieved person entitling him to maintain a writ petition challenging an order of the licensing authority granting pe...
R. Lakshminarayanan and ors. Vs. V.A. Maruthappa Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ79
M. Natesan, J.1. The short question for consideration by the Full Bench in this batch of writ appeals is, whether a licensee of an existing rice mill has locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for the establishment of a new rice mill in the locality, under the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, XXI of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appeals have been preferred from the dismissal of petitions for certiorari on the ground that an existing rice mill owner is not a person aggrieved by the grant of permit to another and has no standing to apply for certiorari. In Kuppuswami Pillai v. The State of Madras W.P. Nos. 2332 of 1966 etc., Kailasam J., observed that the mere fact that a person who has a mill in close proximity to the one to which licence has been granted is likely to suffer financial loss is not sufficient to make him an aggrieved person entitling him to maintain a writ petition challenging an order of the licensing authori...
V. David Raja Vs. J.P. Devaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1969
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ623
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The 37th defendant in O.S. No. 118 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed an application, I. A. No. 1261 of 1964, under Order 26, Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for certain directions to supercede the report of the commissioner appointed in I. A. No. 108 of 1962 at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit, and for appointing a fresh commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds into 8 shares and for allotment of such each share to the sharers entitled thereto. Being unsuccessful before the lower Court, he has come up to this Court in revision.2. Relevant facts have to be noticed before the contentions of Counsel can be dealt with and appreciated. The properties belonged originally to one Joseph. He died leaving behind his sons and daughters, who were admittedly entitled to a one eighth share in the properties, w...
Mohammad Zackriah Sahib Vs. Chinnappan Alias Subramania Mudaliar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ649
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In order to elucidate the precise issue that arises for my determination, in this second appeal and related civil revision proceeding, in which both proceedings the plaintiff is the appellant and petitioner, the following facts are essential.2. Certain property was owned by the first defendant, and on 6th December, 1958 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the first defendant for the purchase of the suit property for Rs. 2,500. He paid Rs. l,000 as advance and undertook to pay the balance of Rs. 1,500 in forty five days. The stipulation was that the first defendant should execute the sale deed in his favour.3. Admittedly, on 12th December, 1958, the first defendant sold the suit property to the second defendant for Rs. 3,000 under a document of sale. The plaintiff filed the present suit, out of which these proceedings arise, viz., O.S.No. 70 of 1959, in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppattur, for specific performance of the agreement in his fav...
T.A. Kumarasamy Pathar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1969
Reported in: [1969]23STC447(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The short point in the tax case is whether the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1959-60 had the minimum turnover which would attract tax under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authority proceeded as follows:- 1. Turnover disclosed by books Rs. 4,467.70 2. Add estimated turnovertowards probable omissions Rs. 4,467.70Taxable turnover Rs. 8,935.40Inter-State sales turnover Rs. 12,421.12--------------Total turnover Rs. 21,356.52--------------2. The other authorities below accepted this process to be correct.3. We think that position cannot be maintained. Section 3 of the Act, which is the charging section, imposes tax on every dealer 'whose total turnover for a year is not less than ten thousand rupees.' 'Total turnover' is defined to mean the aggregate turnover in all goods of a dealer at all places of business in the State, whether or not the whole or any portion of such turnover is liable to tax. 'Turnover' is the aggregate amou...
T.K.E. Mohammed Yousuff Vs. the Accommodation Controller and the Reven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ75
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This Writ Petition raises an important question regarding the scope of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i960 (Madras Act XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter called the Act) in its application to buildings allotted by the Government for governmental purposes or for occupation of Government Officers under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act.2. Before reference is made to the law on the subject, it will be useful to put down the facts of the case briefly; The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing door No. 24, Convent Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli. It had been allotted at an anterior period in 1956 after the notification of the vacancy by the landlord under Section 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, to one Narayanaswamy Special Deputy Tahsildar. This Officer subsequently built a house of his own for residence, and was about to vacate the aforesaid building of the petitioner. When the Accommodation Controller, Tiruchirapalli, the first respondent was ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ayyanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ453
R. Sadasivam, J.1. The State has preferred the appeal against the acquittal of the accused Ayyanar on the charge of murder for having caused the death of' Rakkashiammal by cutting her with an aruval on the right leg at about 2 p.m. on 4th November, 1967 in Thottiapatti village, as a result of which the victim died at about 6-25 p.m. on the way to the hospital., Learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 304 (Part II) Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to Rigourious Imprisonment for five years. The accused has not preferred any appeal against his conviction or sentence.2. The fact that the accused did cut Rakkashiammal on the afternoon of 4th November, 1967, is proved by reliable evidence in this case and it has not been challenged by the learned Advocate for the accused. The accused Ayyanar was keeping P.W. 1 Lingammal, a married woman, the daughter of the deceased Rakkashiammal. P.W. 1 Lingammal lent Rs. 300 belonging to her mother, the deceased, to P.W. 7 Pulungan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »