Chennai Court June 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.
C. Bhavarlal Managing Proprietor, Sri Meliata Talkies Vs. Mallay Gound ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ236
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant was a lessee of a permanent cinema theatre. The lease was in the first instance, for a term of 10 years, but subject to renewal for a further term of 5 years. After the expiry of 15 years, the appellant applied for renewal of the cinema licence, but without success. The Collector was not satisfied as to his lawful possession of the site on which the permanent theatre was situate. The Board of Revenue declined to interfere. Alagiriswami, J., also considered that no interference was called for and dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Mr. Thiagarajan for the appellant attempted to take us through the material which bears on the appellant's lawful possession of the site. But we are of opinion that in a matter like this, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not go into the disputed question as to who is in lawful possession. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not analogous to a sui...
Chennichi Alias Parikkal, Wife of Mariappa Goundar Vs. D.A. Srinivasan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ234
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He took on lease a piece of Vacant land under a Chit dated 26th September, 1957, for a period of three years, for the purpose of putting up a homestead from the respondent herein. The petitioner agreed to have the superstructure removed at the time of the termination of the lease and to pay a rent Rs. 9 per month and, in case he committed default, to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. The tenant having committed default in payment of the rent accrued due from 26th March, 1964, the respondent laid a suit in ejectment in O.S. No. 277 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri. The petitioner herein raised various contentions one among which was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and that, once a vacant parcel of land is taken on lease for the specified purpose of putting up a building and a building has been put up, the land becomes an integral part of the building and th...
Manicka Vatsala Bai Vs. Manicka Raja Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ225
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Madurai in C.M.A. No. 104 of 1964.2. The appellant is the Wife and the respondent is the husband. The respondent obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in O.P. No. 145 of 1961 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge Madurai which ended in a decree on 20th August, 1962. Curiously enough the respondent never took any steps to execute the decree in a manner known to law or to take back the wife under normal circumstances. In fact it is not in dispute that the wife (the appellant) was entreating the respondent to take her back and the respondent besides subjectively expressing his willingness to take her back never took active steps to implement his desire The wife obviously having become apprehensive of the state of affairs filed E. A. No. 598 of 1964 for an order to direct the respondent to take her back in implementation of the decree for conjugal rights obtained by him. In t...
G. Ramakrishniah and anr. Vs. Dasaratharama Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad484
Natesan, J.1. A short but interesting question in the application of the rule against perpetuities embodied in Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The appeal is directed against a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of an one-fourth share in the suit properties. One Pattabirama Reddy, pursuant to a family arrangement, under the registered settlement deed Ex. A-1 dated 5-1-1931, settled the suit properties in favour of the sons of one Duraiswamy Reddy, two sons then in existence and sons that may be born subsequently. Duraiswamy Reddy was the son of Pattabirama Reddy's wife's sister and on the date of the settlement Duraiswamy Reddy had two sons, Ravana, aged two years and Sundararama, aged four months. The settlement referred to the two minor sons then in existence and provided that the father Duraiswamy Reddy shall be the guardian of the minor sons in existence and that may be born and that he shall look after...
K. Subramania Pillai and K. Ramdoos Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC448(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. Two points are urged: (1) after the recent amendment of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, the sale of jaggery attracts tax under Section 18(1), and, for this reason, the tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act cannot be levied, and (2) jaggery is some kind of an agricultural produce exempt from tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. In our view, neither of the contentions is correct. Reliance is placed on the opening words, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959', which occur in Section 18(1) of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959, for the contention that these words have the effect of impliedly overruling the charge under the General Sales Tax Act. We are clearly of the view that they have no such effect. 'Notwithstanding' in Section 18(1) only signifies that in spite of the fact that a tax may be payable on the sale of jaggery under the provisions of the General Sales ...
P.N. Raju Chettiar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad306
1. The State Government by an order dated 3-3-1967 made under Section 29 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, exempted the portion under tenancy in premises No. 176/2 in Anna Pillai St. George Town, Madras, from the provisions of Section 10. The appellant, who is the tenant, filed his objections stating inter alia that the respondent landlord was but a poojari and was not carrying on a business for which he could bona fide reciuire the premises for his occupation. With reference to that the impugned order says-"The Government are satisfied that the claim of the landlord that he required the shop portion in the occupation of the tenant for starting and running a business of his own is bona fide. But the landlord is yet to commence the business."On that view, the order proceeded on the basis that the landlord had no remedy under the provisions of the Act and exercise of the powers under Section 29 was called for. The appellant unsuccessfully pursued the matter befo...
In Re: Baluswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ228
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, in C.C. No. 4309 of 1968, on the ground that the sentence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained by virtue of Section 71, Indian Penal Code, as the accused has been convicted under Section 338, Indian Penal Code.2. This reference is quite unwarranted. Section 279 and Section 338, Indian Penal Code, deal with separate and distinct offences. The gravamen of the charge under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, is rash and negligent driving on a Public way, whereas the gravamen of the charge under Section 338, Indian Penal Code, is. causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving in any place. Therefore, a person can be convicted for causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent driving and punished under ...
R.M. Nitya thevar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC520(Mad)
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question of exemption was not raised by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who disposed of the assessee's appeal on the grounds raised by him. Nevertheless, the appellant invoking the theory of merger took up the stand that he was entitled to raise the question of exemption for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal thought that, in the circumstances, it had no jurisdiction to allow the question of exemption to be raised. It seems to us that it is unnecessary to decide the question of jurisdiction, as we think that the case is capable of disposal from another point of view. The assessee having not urged that the particular turnover was entitled to exemption before the assessing authority, the Tribunal could have well said on that ground that the question was no longer open instead of disposing of the matter on a point of jurisdiction.2. On that view, the tax case is dismissed....
K.C. Devassay Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ533
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. By an order dated 22nd November, 1967, the State Government, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 29 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, exempted the ground floor of premises No. 13, Muthukrishna Mudali Street, Mylapore, from the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. The tenant sought to quash this order, but unsuccessfully. The appellant contends that the order proceeded on a wrong assumption that the landlord had no remedy under the Act, and, therefore, the powers under Section 29 were available in this case:2. This is what the Government stated in its order:The Government have come to the conclusion that the request of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide and that the landlord has no remedy under the Act as he cannot evict the tenant through Court under Section 10 (3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of occupation of his daughter and her family.3. It seems to us that this view, whi...
Parasurama Odayar Vs. Appadurai Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad271
1. This Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the conflict of observations in Bench decisions of this Court concerning the effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Order 5, Rule 19, Civil P. C. relating to the service of summons.2. The reference arises out of an application, E. A. 120 of 1960, filed by one Parasurama Odayar, the judgment-debtor in O. S. 10 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif, Ami, to have it declared that the execution sale of his property which took place on 22-7-1959, in execution of the said decree was null and void. The property which was sold was about three acres in extent with a well and electic motor pump set. A sum of about Rs. 500 was due on the security of the property to the Government in respect of a loan which had been taken. The property was sold for a sum of Rs. 11 subject to the above encumbrance and the purchaser was one Seshadri Iyengar, the second respondent in E. A. 120 of 1960, The notice of sale sent by registered post was retu...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »