Chennai Court September 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.
G.A. Mistafa Vs. Inyath Rathima Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ354
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 7(1)(b) and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to declare the petitioner as the guardian, and for the custody of his minor daughter, Khudsia Fathima alias Shala Navid. The respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. The petitioner, who is employed as a pilot in Indian Airlines Corporation, stationed at Calcutta, married the respondent at Madras on 3rd September, 1960, and the respondent begot Khudsia Fathima alias Shala Navid on 28th October, 1961. When the couple were living at Calcutta along with the minor, the petitioner appears to have developed friendship with an air-hostess and divorced the respondent on 4th May, 1967. After the divorce, the respondent came away to Madras with the minor daughter and is now living with her parents, who are residents of Madras. The petitioner is a native of Madras where he has got an ancestral house in which his parents are living. The petitioner's contention is that he being she...
Kamalayee Ammal Vs. Parvathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ678
M. Natesan, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question of res judicata. The plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit properties, has preferred the second appeal. Her claim to a half share in the properties has been accepted by the Courts below on the merits, but is found barred by a prior judgment in a suit to which the plaintiff and the first defendant were parties. The material facts are now concluded by the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Palaniyandi Servai who left five sons, Udaippan Servai, Muthuchamy Servai, Muthuveeran Servai, Muthukaruppan Servai and Velu Servai. Plaintiff Kamalayee Ammal is the widow of Muthuchamy Servai who died undivided long prior to the enactment of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. She had a son Palaniyandi Servai and a daughter Alagammal. The son Palaniyandi Servai died in 1952, leaving surviving his widow Pa...
Bortes S.A. by Agents, South India Corporation (Agencies) Private Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad323
ORDER1. The defendants, a private limited Company, have taken out this application under Section 34 of the Arbetration Act, 1940, for stay of all proceedings in the suit. The suit is to recover Rs. 1,63,282-12 on the allegation that the said amount was payable in respect of the use of the plaintiff's vessel 'S. S. Stavros', as per charterparty dated 17-5-1968 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants at New York, United States of America. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs applied in Application No. 1523 of 1968 for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from removing their tanker from the Madras Harbour. Ismail, J., before whom that came up for orders, issued an interim injunction on 2-8-1968. The defendants took out Application No. 1564 of 196.8 praying that the interim injunction may be vacated and that the bank guarantee of the First National City Bank, Madras, to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/-, may be accepted. In view of the undertaking, the learned...
Astrotito Compania Naviour S.A. Power of Attorney Agent, Shaw Wallace ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ398
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The defendants, a Private Limited Company, have taken out this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of all proceedings in the suit. The suit is to recover Rs. 1,63,282-12 on the allegation that the said amount was payable in respect of the use of the plaintiff's vessel 's.s. Stavros,' as per charter party dated 17th May, 1968 entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants at New York, United States of America. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs applied in Application No. 1523 of 1968 for the issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from removing their tanker from the Madras Harbour. Ismail, J., before whom that came up for orders, issued an interim injunction on 2nd August, 1968. The defendants took out Application No. 1564 of 1968 praying that the interim injunction may be vacated and that the bank guarantee of the First National City Bank, Madras, to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000, may be accepted. In view o...
Union of India, Madras and anr. Vs. Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd.,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad53; (1971)IIMLJ41
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, is the appellant before us. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Sri Rajendra Mills Limited, Salem and the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay against the Union of India, representing Southern Railway and Central Railway for damages in a sum of Rs. 10,128/- being the loss suffered by them as a result of the damage to the first plaintiff's goods by fire. The facts which gave rise to the suit are not in dispute.The first plaintiff was consignee of 100 bales of pressed cotton from Messrs. Naran Das Rajaram (Private) Limited, Bombay. The bales were securely packed and delivered in good condition at Banosa in the Central Railway and were accepted for carriage at railway risk to be delivered to the plaintiff at Salem in Southern Railway, under invoice No. R. R. No. 9120/34 dated 2-3-1959. Out of the said consignment of 100 bales, 90 bales were loaded in one wagon and 10 bales were loaded in one wagon and ...
The Union of India (Uoi), Owning the Southern Railway by the General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ212
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, is the appellant before us. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, Sri Rajendra Mills Limited, Salem and the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, Bombay, against the Union of India representing Southern Railway and Central Railway for damages in a sum of Rs. 10,128 being the loss suffered by them as a result of the damage to the first plaintiff's goods by fire. The facts which gave rise to the suit are not in dispute. The first plaintiff was a consignee of 100 bales of pressed cotton from Messrs. Naran Das Rajaram (Private) Limited, Bombay. The bales were securely packed and delivered in good condition at Banosa in the Central Railway and were accepted for carriage at railway risk to be delivered to the plaintiff at Salem in Southern Railway; under invoice No. R.R. No. 9120 of 34 dated 2nd March, 1959. Out of the said consignment of 100 bales, 90 bales were loaded in one wagon and 10 bales were...
In Re: Veeral Alias Kanal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad298; 1970CriLJ1020
Kailasam, J.1. The accused Veeral alias Kanal was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in that on 9th September 1968 at about 3 A. M. at Vellaikinar, she committed the murder of her new-born female child by strangulation with the umbilical cord. The learned Judge found the accused guilty of the charge and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has also made a recommendation to the Government for reduction of the sentence of imprisonment for life to one of rigorous imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.2. The accused was married to one Chinnan of Vellaikinar village. They had a son, Palaniswamy. Chinnan died about ten years ago. After her husband's death, the accused left Vellaikinar, and went away somewhere, but she came back to Vellaikinar about four months prior to the occurrence. On the request of the accused, P. W. 1 Deival who has...
M.G. Chakravarthi Naicker and anr. Vs. K.M. Thillaimoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ476
K.N. Mudaliyar, J. 1. One M.G. Chakravarthi Naicker and the State of Madras are the appellants in these two writ appeals respectively. They seek to appeal against the order of Venkatadri, J., in Writ Petition No. 1156 of 1969 quashing the order issued by the Government of Madras, Revenue Department, in G.O. Ms. No. 2817, dated 19th September, 1963.2. The two writ appeals may be dealt with by us in a common order.3. Succinctly stated, the facts are that one Manicka Naicker, the father of the first respondent, K. M. Thillaimoorthy, applied in the year 1952 to the Government for the assignment of the poramboke land in S. No. 531/1 of the extent of 2 acres 90 cents. Manicka Naicker alleged in his petition that Chakravarthi Naicker, a political thyagi, was already given lands in Vaiyyavoor village comprised in S. No. 531/4, S. No. 531/5, and S. No. 5,31/6. It is seen from the records that Chakravarthi Naicker got lands assigned in his favour the total extent being 7 acres. Manicka Naicker a...
Thangammal and ors. Vs. Murugammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad325; (1970)1MLJ460
1. This second appeal raises an interesting question in the application of Section 28 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. Defendants 3 to 5 are appellants in the Second Appeal. The suit property is the superstructure of premises in Jagannathapuram, Second Street, Chetput, Madras. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit instituted S. C. No. 1560 of 1940 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, for the ground rent due by one Ponnuswami, the then owner of the superstructure, and, in pursuance of the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes on 28-4-1940, they attached the superstructure and put it upfor sale under Section 28 of the Act. Thesuperstructure was purchased by one Jayaram Naidu and a sale certificate Ex. B-11 dated 14-11-1942 was issued in his favour.Subsequently in May, 1945 Jayaram Naidu sold the superstructure to the present 1st defendant P.S. Sarma. The 1st defendant, for securing possession of the property instituted the suit O. S. No. 1994 of 1954 on the file...
V. Balakrishnan Vs. Rm.A.N. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ464
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who is admittedly a debtor having been unsuccessful in his contention in the Court below that he was entitled to a greater relief under Section 9 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, is the appellant before me. The petitioner executed a mortgage on 2nd June, 1935, along with respondents 2 and 3 and obtained a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the first respondent. The hypotheca was situate in the State of Pudukottai, as it then was, at the time when the mortgage was executed. It is common ground that the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938, herein referred to as the Act, was ushered into and made applicable in the State of Pudukottai on and from 1st January, 1950. After the Act was so introduced and made applicable, the petitioner filed an. application on 20th November, 1964, under Section 19 (A-1) of the Act praying that the Court may declare as to what exactly was the amount due by the petitioner and others to the first respondent. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »