Chennai Court December 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.
Md. SaduddIn Samdani Vs. State (Accommodation Deputy Tahsildar)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ535
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. 1. The appellant-landlord was convicted under Section 3(5) and Section 17(1) read with sections of the Madras Buildings (Lease and rent) and Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act' and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250 under each count (Rs. 500 in all), by the Chief presidency Magistrate, Madras. The Premises No. 6 , Jani Khan Street , 1st lane , Royapettah, Madras, the monthly rent of which was Rs. 65 and this building was subject to the provisions of the Act. This building was occupied by a private tenant and it was vacated on 7th October , 1966. Under Section 3 of the Act , the owner I required to intimate the accommodation Controller the vacancy of the building whenever there is any , within seven days. Accordingly , the appellant informed the Accommodation Controller about the vacancy under a letter dated 13th October, 1966 , which was within seven days. In the same letter, he requested for release of the said premises to enable him to occupy the same as...
Abdul Kareem and anr. Vs. Zuleika Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad184
1. Appellants are the brother's sons and heirs of one Kadir Mohideen, who died on 16-6-1948. They filed the suit to recover possession of two shops, bearing door Nos. 33 and 34, Main Road in Shalavalli village, as belonging to the estate to Kadir Mohideen. The first defendant Zuleika Bi is the daughter's daughter of Kadir Mohideen's sister-in-law and she claimed title to the suit shops under a gift deed, Ex. A-14, dated 27-5-1945 executed by Kadir Mohideen, and also on the basis of adverse possession. There can be no doubt in this case that Kadir Mohideen executed the gift deed and intended to give the shops to the first defendant, Zulaika Bi. But the trial Court found that the gift was invalid, as it was not accepted by or on behalf of the donee Zulaika Bi, and the donor Kadir Mohideen did not deliver possession of the suit shops and the lower appellate court concurred with this finding. The trail court also negatived the plea of adverse possession put forward by the first defendant Z...
P.T. Srinivasan Vs. the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ144
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kailasam, J., declining to quash, at the instance of the appellant, an order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which was made under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.2. The appellant was in the service of the first respondent first as a Draughtsman and later as a District Engineer. In about the middle of January, 1964, he was transferred to Madurai Division, but he took leave and returned to duty on 5th November, 1964. There was a direction subsequently asking him to join the Madras Branch. On and from tr.afc date and up to 5th February, 1965 he was assigned inspection of pump sets outside his headquarters. He again went on leave and returned to duty on 5 th February, 1965. On 5th February, 1965, his services were terminated. The order said that the appellant's explanation was unconvincing and that since it was felt that the appellant was guilty of gross negligence and careless...
V. Chakrapani Naidu Vs. D. Jayaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ116
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals will have to be allowed on a short ground that by the very language of Section 25 (2) of Madras Act (XXXV of 1958) it will not be applicable to a member of a Panchayat Union Council by reason of Section 12 as introduced by Act (XVIII of 1964). To deal with these appeals it will suffice to notice briefly the facts in Writ Appeal No. 116 of 1969. The appellant in that case was elected as a member as well as the President of Mela Ulur Panchayat in January, 1965. On 28th April, 1965 the first meeting of the Panchayat Union Council took place at which the appellant was duly nominated for Chairmanship and elected as Chairman by a majority of votes. The first respondent challenged the election of the appellant as President of the Union Council on the ground that he had a subsisting interest of works with it because he happened to be member of a co-operative society which had entered into a contract with the Council. The election petition was dismissed, but ...
N. Tirumalayappa Pillai Alias N.T. Pannayar Vs. P. Ramasubramania Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ282
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The first and the second respondents herein filed O.S. No. 203 of 1963 in the District Munsifs Court, Tirunelveli, for a decree declaring the properties set out in the suit schedule as absolutely endowed kattalai properties for the performance of Nithiya Pooja, Neivethiyam, etc., in Perumal Koil, Sivan Koil, Kulakarai Ganapathi Koil and Sastha Elangavu Kannar Koil at Puliyoorkurichi village, Nanguneri Taluk and to direct the defendants 1 to 8 to deliver possession of them on behalf of the trust either to the plaintiffs as worshippers or to the lawful trustee of the Kattalais. The suit further prays for mesne profits from the date of the plaint to the date of delivery of possession. The plaintiffs inter alia alleged that as per the registered partition deed dated 2nd February, 1872, executed between Arunachalam Pillai his brothers, and sons of Ramasubramania Pillai of Puliyoorkurichi village, the schedule pr...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Special Tahsildar for Harijan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ628
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in O.P. No. )2 of 1962, which was heard and decided by him on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894). An extent of Acre 1.92 cents, wet and dry lands in the village of Raghunathapuram in Papanasam Taluk of Thanjavur District was proposed to be acquired for providing house sites to Harijans. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was made on nth October, 1961, and it was followed up by a notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 1st November, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award would say that he caused notices under Sections 9 and 10 to be published and served on the persons interested. According to him, the respondents appeared before him at the time of the award enquiry and presented an objection petition through their advocate seeking for the avoidance of the acquisition. He would also state that ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Perumal Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad351; 1970CriLJ1236; (1970)2MLJ309
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. First Batch:-- These cases relate to offences under the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965. The only point raised in these cases is that the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965 is not valid on the ground that the concurrence of the Central Government was not Obtained within 'thirty days after Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 came into force. Sub-rule (3-A) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules came into force on 20-5-1965, The Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order, 1965 was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 read with Sub-rule (3) and Clause (b) of Sub-rule (9) of that rule, by the Governor of Madras, which came into force on 1-1-1965. At the time when the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order 1965 was passed, Sub-rule (3-A) to Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules was not in force. Therefore, it may be ...
The Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madras Vs. P. Rangasami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad441; [1970]76ITR315(Mad)
1. These cases, two references under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 and petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by different parties, raise an important and difficult question of law. The question is, whether there is a gift within the meaning of the Act, when a member of Hindu undivided family the father in these cases, by his unilateral act converts his separate or self-acquired property into joint family property, that is in figurative language, when he throws his self acquisition into the common hotchpot of the joint family and impresses the same with the character of joint family property. As conflicting views on the question are found expressed in different High Courts, the matter has been placed before a Full Bench.2. In T. C. 272 of 1964 the reference has been obtained by the Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madras. The assessee in that case who had four sons, two of them minors, by a deed dated 21-5-1958, drawn in the form of an affidavit, made a declaration the rele...
P.C. Balasanjanna Vs. Fourth Gift-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1969
Reported in: [1972]86ITR748(Mad)
Natesan, J.1. The petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ prohibiting the respondent from further preceding with his proposal to assess the petitioner to gift-tax pursuant to his notice under Section 16(1) of the Gift-tax Act was heard by us along with T. C.Nos. 272 of 1964, 10 of 1966, etc. Commissioner of Gift-tax v. P. Rangaswami Naidu, : [1970]76ITR315(Mad) (Mad.) raising a common question of law. On February 8, 1965, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent to submit a return under the Gift-tax Act pointing out that the officer had reason to believe that a gift made by the petitioner was assessable to gift-tax for the assessment year 1962-63. Thereupon the petitioner represented to the respondent that all he had done was to throw into the hotchpot of his family his self-acquired property making a declaration to that effect, that there was no transfer of property within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act and that, therefore, no liability was i...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Babulal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1969
Reported in: 1973CENCUS1
Venkateswara Rao, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the acquittal of the respondent herein of offences punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act and Rule 126-P (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ooty.2. The case against the accused (respondent) as revealed by the evidence adduced for the prosecution is as follows: At about 8. P. M. on 16-3-67 the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise (P. W. 1) found the accused seated in a third class compartment of the Guntur bound train at the Guntakal Railway Station and having suspected that he was in possession of contraband gold, took him to the Office of the Ticket Collector with a view to search him and his belongings. The search of his attache-case in the presence of mediators revealed that he was carrying with him concealed within that box 1043-200 grams of primary gold and gold ornaments including three pieces (M Os 6 to 8) of gold with foreign markings. P. W. 1 seize...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »