Chennai Court August 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.
Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam by Its Adheenakarthar Sri La Sri Subramania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ523
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The petitioner is Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam. The petition relates to a notification issued by the Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1963, fixing : the 1st day of October, 1966 as the appointed day on which the provisions of that Act would take effect in relation to the village of Kodarankulam. The petitioner states that the lands were originally leased by the Nawab of Carnatic to one Ragho Pandit, that later the lease was converted into Kattukuthagai, that on the assumption of power by the British Government full assessment was charged annually, and that finally during the Inam settlement the inam tenure was converted into a. permanent freehold and title deed 204 dated 10th September, 1864 was issued by the Government. The petitioner's contention is that the inam which has been enfranchised stands on the same footing as ryotwari land, and that the provisions of Madras Act XXVI could not be applied to the village. The contention on behalf of the Government...
In Re: V.V. Govindan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad315; 1970CriLJ1110
ORDERVenkataraman, J. 1. This revision case has been filed by the two accused in a case tried summarily by the learned District Magistrate of Coimbatore for contravention of the provisions of the Madras Gur and Khandsari Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 read with Section 7(l)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is alleged that accused 1 who is the proprietor of V. V. Govindan and Co., and accused 2 who is the clerk of the said company, were dealing in Khandsari Sugar over 25 quintals at a time, between 1st April 1965 and 19th March 1966, without obtaining a licence under the said Order. 2. The learned District Magistrate has found, on the evidence that accused 1 was dealing in Khandsari Sugar over 25 quintals at a time during the relevant period. That finding is not challenged before me. The defence of accused 1 was that he had applied for a licence on 2nd February 1965 itself enclosing a chalan for Rs. 5 the fee for the licence. The learned District Magistrate finds t...
Sanyasi Chettiar Vs. Harigopalsami Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ246
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The transferee decree-holder auction-purchaser is the petitioner before me. He brought to sale certain properties which were admittedly attached in execution of a money decree and it is not disputed that in the earlier stages when successive proclamations of sale were drawn up, lot No. 1 was described as being comprised in Survey No. 49/3-B. But later at any rate in the proclamation of sale under which the sale fructified, this lot was described as being comprised in Survey No. 49/3-A. But the extent of the property remained the same throughout. The petitioner purchased the property in Court auction, an extent of 1-72 acres of land, said to be comprised within survey No. 49/3-A when it ought to be survey No. 49/3-B. He obtained the sale certificate and at the time he sought for possession and registration of the sale certificate, it was brought to his notice that there was a discrepancy in the survey number. It was this which prompted him to apply to the C...
T.S. Venkataraman and C.S. Subramanyam and ors. Vs. the Director of Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ49
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the decision of Kailasam, J., in W.P. Nos. 3926 to 3931 of 1967. The prior facts, so far as they are necessary for a consideration of the matter in controversy in these appeals, can be put down briefly.2. The writ petitioners entered service in the Posts and Telegraphs Department as clerks on various dates between 1937 and 1940. The post of Accountant carried a higher scale of pay, and it is, therefore, a promotion post from the clerical grade. Rule 273 of the Post and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV, prescribes for an examination being held in order to obtain a competent class of accountants for post offices.' Rule 2 73 (b) lays down that the number of candidates to be selected to appear at the examination will be ten times the number of vacancies minus the number of officials in the ordinary time-scales of pay who have passed the examination but who have not been provided for as accountants or assistant accountants. Rule 27...
Madras Non-Gazetted Civil Accounts Officers' Association (by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1969
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ303Mad
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of Kailasam, J., by which he dismissed the appellant's petition under Arc. 223 of the Constitution to quash an order or the Accountant-General. Madras, dated 27 September 1968. By that order the appellant was told that, in view of the strike by certain Government servants in the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, he had come to the conclusion that the de facto recognition of the appellant-association should be withdrawn with immediate effect. The order also stated that the facilities given to the association and its office-bearers should stand automatically withdrawn and that the secretary of the association should make over immediately to the care-taker of the Accountant-General's office vacant possession of the room in the office premises which had been in the occupation of the association. Kailasam, J., was of the view that the recognition of the association being no longer rested on any statutory rules, its wi...
K.M. Mohammad Abdul Kader Firm Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1969
Reported in: (1971)IILLJ130Mad
Ismail, J.1. The second respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner from March, 1946 to February, 1966, working as a gumastha. On 19th February, 1966, he filed a petition before the Labour Court, Madurai, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The 2nd respondent claimed in that petition that the petitioner was paying bonus of seven months' salary for each year, one month's salary representing 'Ramzan bonus' and six months' salary representing 'ordinary bonus' and he had received this customary bonus upto 1953, 'but from 1953 upto February, 1966, for 12 years, the bonus amount has been credited in the name of the petitioner (2nd respondent in this writ petition)', and the petitioner stated that it had advanced to the 2nd respondent a sum of Rs. 2,454.54. The second respondent also claimed salary for 4 months at Rs. 100 per month amounting to Rs. 450 and a further sum of Rs. 2,100 as retirement benefit. The petitioner herei...
K. Saraswathi Alias K. Kalpana Vs. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ119
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This summons is taken out by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 16 Civil Procedure Code, and Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules praying (1), that the portions of the written-statement as shown in her affidavit should be struck out as being scandalous and defamatory; (2) that the defendant should be prohibited from making any allegation casting reflection on the character or status of the plaintiff before the Commissioner, before whom the defendant is to be examined, and (3) to direct the defendant to give evidence in Court.2. The suit is to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit property, which is a building in Santhome High Road, Madras. It is alleged in the plain that the plantiff advanced a loan of Rs. 4,70,000, to the defendant in the year 1966, flat the defendant subsequently expressing his inability to repay the loan offered to sell the suit property, that the sale amount was fixed at Rs. 4,00,000, that a sum of Rs. 1,20...
Al. Ar. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Pl. Ct. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad269
ORDERPalaniswamy, J. 1. The point for consideration In this application taken out by the plaintiff under Order 14, Rule 12 of the Original Side Rules is whether he is a pauper within the meaning of Order 33, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Master, against whose order this application has been filed, held against the plaintiff holding that he had intentionally and fraudulently suppressed his interest in a house property at Madurai and that on account of such suppression the plaintiff is not entitled to sue in forma pauperis though he is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property, The court-fee payable comes to about Es. 40,000 (to be accurate Rs. 39,451-50 P.), The case of the plaintiff is that apart from his interest of 1/8th share in some lands, which share, according to him, is worth only about Rs, 2,000. he has no other property. The defendant alleged In his counter statement that the plai...
Mrs. Kalidha Adib Begum and anr. Vs. S.A. Bashirunnissa Begum Hussaini ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ98
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This petition, filed under Section 74 of the Indian Trusts Act,. (II of 1882), raises an interesting but complicated question of Mahomedan Law. The relevant facts are these. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner and is the daughter of the first respondent and late M. Abdul Basith Sahib. Respondents 2 and 3 are the sister's children of the first respondent. The site upon which the petition-scheduled building stands originally belonged to the first respondent. The susperstructure belonged to Abdul Basith. On 15th February, 1951, Abdul Basith executed a settlement over the petitioner-scheduled property in favour of the first petitioner without reference to the first respondent, his wife. On 25th October, 1956, Abdul Basith revoked that settlement with the consent of the first petitioner. On 27th July, 1959, Abdul Basith and the first respondent jointly executed a document, which is marked as Exhibit P-1 in this case, styled as settlement deed, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Estate of Late C. Raju Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR211(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This reference comes before us under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The question is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to be assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 ?'2. The assessee had been assessed in the status of an individual up to the assessment year 1937-38. It the next year, for the first time, it was made in the status of a Hindu undivided family and he continued to be assessed so until and inclusive of the assessment year 1958-59. But for the assessment year 1959-60, though he filed his return in the same status, the Income-tax Officer, after investigation, found that the assessee was a Vysia and his so-called wife was a Sudhra and that beyond the fact that there was only the tying of thali, there was no other ceremony. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, charged the assessee in the status of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »