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.
Venkitasubbu Ramaswami Vanavarayar Vs. Marimuthu Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ108
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Rent Court, Pollachi under the following circumstances:A hereditary trustee of the Mariamman temple at Samathur filed an application on nth May, 1966 under Section 29 of the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, for fixation of fair rent in respect of certain trust lands that had been leased out to the respondent herein. The original rent payable was about Rs. 600 per annum and the trustee wanted it to be enhanced to over Rs. 3,000 on the ground that the lease-hold had become converted into wet lands. This application was contested by the tenant and the enquiry was being postponed from 29th July, 1966 to 13th March, 1967 on which date neither the petitioner nor his advocate was present in Court and consequently, the Rent Court dismissed the petition for non-appearance of the petitioner. Under Rule 24 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, the proceedings of Re...
S.V.K.N. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. V.R.P.L.M. Palaniappa Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad401; (1970)2MLJ458
Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2-1-1965 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the application E. A. 12 of. 1964 In E. P. 15 of 1958 in O. S. No. 96 of 1943 which the appellant filed calling upon the respondents 1 to 4 in the petition and in the appeal to redeposit the amount of Rs. 18,289-24 which they had drawn out. The facts have been fully stated in the judgment under appeal and it is enough to mention the following facts. One Rayaloo Aivar and Company had a mortgage over five items of properties dated 14-9-1921. It obtained a decree in O. S. No. 75 of 1934 which was duly confirmed in appeal. In execution it brought Item 1 of the hypotheca to sale on 15-1-1956 for Rs. 24000. The decree in O. S. 75 of 1934 was fully satisfied and there remained a surplus amount of Rs. 19595-8-10. In the said suit the predecessor-in-title of the respondents 1 to 4 herein was impleaded as the 3rd defendant because he held a subsequent mortgage dated 9-1-192...
A. Gnanasikhamony Vs. Palukal Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad360; 1970CriLJ1239
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the accused in C. C. No. 15 of 1967 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, Kuzhitnurai, against the order of the said Magistrate in overruling the preliminary objection raised by him on the 'ground that the complaint against him was Incompetent as there was no procedure laid down in Madras Panchayat Act for the recovery of the amount due from him under the contract by way of distraint or prosecution. 2. It is necessary to note the facts very briefly for the purpose of appreciating the point raised by the petitioners: The right of collecting fees from Kannumamood public market in Palukal Panchayat was leased out to the petitioner by the Executive' Officer, Palukal Panchayat, and a written agreement was entered into between the Executive officer of the Panchayat on one part and the petitioner on the other on 7th April 1966 by which the petitioner had to pay to the panchayat the kist amount in ten monthly instalmen...
G. Pulla Reddy, Specialist in Quality Sweets Vs. the Indian Internatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ558
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J. 1. The question is what is the correct Court-fee payable in this case. The petitioner has taken out this application as Judges, Summons under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitrat on Act, 1940, for adirect on to the respondent to file an arbitration -agreement dated 28th November, 1967 into Court and for making an order of reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court. The applicant has paid a Court-fee of Rs. 2. The office has pointed out that Court-fee of Rs. 250 should be paid on the application on the basis that it has been presented to the High Court as provided in Schedule II, Article 1 (11) (n) of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. This view does not appear to be correct. The earlier part of Article 1 (11) (n) no doubt refers to an application under Section 14 or an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. But the subsequent portion refers to the value of the subject matter of the award as the criterion for a decis...
B. Kalyanasundaram Vs. A.R. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ585
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition comes before us on a reference made by Ramaprasad Rao, J, as he considered that an authoritative decision should be made as to whether Raval & Co. v. Ramachandran : (1966)2MLJ68 , in so far as it relates to eviction on ground of default in payment of rent, is still good law after Manujendra Dutt v. P. P. Roy Chowdhury (1967) 1 A.W.R. 61 : (1967) 1 M.L.J.61 : (1967) 1 S.C.J. 503.2. The respondent applied to the Controller under Section 10 (2) (1) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for en order of eviction. The Controller granted it on a finding that there had been ' wilful default' in payment of rent on the part of the petitioner and the appeal by the latter had failed. In the lower appellate Court a point was taken, for the first time for the petitioner, that for failure to serve notice under Section 111 (h) of the Transfer of Property Act, the application for eviction was liable to be dismissed. This objection ...
B.K. Varma Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad40; 1971CriLJ60
ORDER1. The revision petitioner was convicted under Sections 16, 2 and 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') read with Rules 32 and 47 of the rules framed thereunder and relased on admoition, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The revision petitioner is the Plant Superintendent of the Southern Bottlers Pte. Ltd., who are the manufacturers of a beverage--aerated water, known as Coca Cola. A complaint was received from Dindigul to the effect that the Coca Cola that was being marketed there was found to cause intoxication and the complaint was forwarded to the Government for necessary action being taken. P.W. 1 Ramachandran, the Sanitary Inspector of 66-67 Dns. Madras, went to Messrs., Southern Bottlers Pte. Ltd. at 26 Mount Road, at about 9-30 a.m. on 22-7-1968 and after observing the formalities, he took nine bottles of Coca Cola from the place where it was manufacture and paid the price therefor to the revision petitioner who was present...
Gokhula and ors. Vs. N. Ramaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad417; (1970)2MLJ104
1. This appeal relates to the interest disallowed by the learned Subordinate Judge Dindigul in O. S. 43 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Court for the period prior to the date of demand for interest made by notice Ex. A.2 dated 26-10-1960. Defendant Ramaswami Naicker executed a registered lease deed, original of Ex. A-1, dated 22-3-1954, in favour of Thirumulu Subbu Chettiar for a period of five years. The lessor Thirumulu Subbu Chettiar filed O. S. 37 of 1955 for first year's rent and another suit O. S. No. 47 of 1957 for the succeeding two years' rent.He filed the present suit, O. S. No. 43 of 1961, for recovery of rent for the last two years of the lease and the period upto 28-11-1959 when the defendant surrendered possession of the leasehold lands. There is no dispute about the actual amount payable by the defendant to the lessor Thirumulu Subbu Chettiar and in fact the amount was fixed by a joint memo dated 24-10-1962 filed by the parties in the lower Court. The defendant di...
Mrs. C.R. Chandra Vs. Tirupati Cotton Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas94(Mad)
Palaniswamy, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act for winding up the respondent-company on the ground that it is unable to pay the petitioner's debts. The respondent-company raises the dispute about the truth of the debt itself. The petitioner claims to have advanced a sum of Rs. 24,000 on June 4, 1967, to the company at the time when the management of the company was in the hands of one Venkata-subbiah, who is the brother of the petitioner. The company admits the loan which is evidenced by the receipt, exhibit D-1. But the case of the company is that the records of the company show that the amount was advanced not by the petitioner but by one Sri Chandra, the petitioner being Mrs. Chandra. The further case of the company is that the amount due to the said Sri Chandra has been discharged by delivery of bales of blankets. That fact is borne out by the gate pass, exhibit D-2, which was issued in the name of Sri Chandra. Venkatasubbiah, petitioner's brothe...
B.K. Varma Vs. Corporation of Madras, by Its Sanitary Inspector, 67-68 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ407
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 16, 2 and 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with Rules 32 and 47 of the Rules framed thereunder and released on admonition, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The revision petitioner is the Plant Superintendent of the Southern Bottlers Private Limited, who are the manufactures of a beverage-aerated water, known as Coca-Cola. A complaint was received form Dindigul to the effect that the Coca-Cola that was being marketed there was found to cause intoxication and the complaint was forwarded to the Government for necessary action being taken.. P.W. 1 Ramachandran, the Sanitary Inspector of 66-67 Divisions, Madras, went to Messrs Southern Bottlers Private Limited, at No. 26, Mount Road, at about 9-30 a.m. on 22nd July, 1968 and after observing the formalities, he took nine bottles of Coca-Cola from the place where it was manufactured, and paid the pr...
R. Thangavelu Vs. Bhahadur Sheriff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ495
R. Sadasivam, J. 1. Petitioner Thangavelu seeks to revise the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority in HRA. No. 342 of 1967 on its file, confirming the order of the Rent Controller in HRC. No. 4828 of 1966 on his file, directing the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from 1st May, 1966 to 30th September, 1966 at the rate of one rupee per day. The petitioner denied the title of the respondent. His case is that the respondent put up the northern superstructure and he put up the southern half of the superstructure of the premises in question and that he has let out three rooms with thatched roofing behind the southern half portion. But the case of the respondent was that he put up the entire superstructure of the premises at his cost and that he has let out the premises occupied by the petitioner for running a Tea shop. Each party examined five witnesses in support of his case, apart from adducing documentary evidence. The Courts bel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »