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.
Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Represented by General Manager Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ256
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 145 of 1959, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The prior facts relating to this second appeal can be briefly set down.2. The plaintiff, the respondent to this second appeal, K. Sundararajan, filed the suit for payment of compensation, after taking an account of the profits of the defendant firm, Messrs. Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals' Limited, represented by its General Manager, Pettaivaithalai, in the Tiruchirapalli District. The plaintiff alleged thus. The plaintiff is an agricultural graduate. For the establishment of a sugar factory under the name 'Kulittalai Sugar Factory Limited' in Pettaivaithalai Village, he obtained an industrial licence from the Government of India under the Industries Act, 1951. The plaintiff ' worked out the area and prepared the ground for the successful working of the said sugar factory.' The defendant is a company sponsored in 1948 for the purpos...
Murugesa Muthu Pillai Vs. Arumugathammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ349
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. One Eswaramurthi Pillai had a daughter Shanmughavadivu through his second wife. She is the 7th defendant in the action. One of her sons is the plaintiff, her other sons being defendants 8 to 11. Defendants 1 to 6 and defendants 12 and 13 are alienees claiming title under Shanmughavadivu aforesaid. This Eswaramurthi left a will, Exhibit A-1, of the year 1935 bequeathing all his properties to his daughter and also providing for the performance of certain charities. He also left a settlement deed, Exhibit A-2 of the year 1905 settling the properties upon his daughter, and also providing for the performance of certain other charities. In the second appeal we are concerned with two items of properties; one item is 68 cents which is item 21 of the B schedule to the will Exhibit A-1 and item 2, 62 cents, the property covered by the settlement Exhibit A-2. The plaintiff filed the action to recover possession of the suit...
S. Sannana Chetty and Sons and ors. Vs. Third Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR177(Mad)
Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the accused in C. C. No. 16 of 1969 on the file of the District Magistrate, Salem, against the order dismissing their preliminary objection that the complaint against them was not maintainable.2. To appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the following facts are relevant:3. The first petitioner was a registered partnership firm. This firm, during the relevant period, was carrying on business as manufacturers of art silk fabrics and dealers in textile goods at Elampillai. They have been purchasing and selling handloom goods. The firm was an income-tax assesses within the jurisdiction of the third Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem. The partners of the said firm are: (1) S. Mari Chetty, (2) S. Arunagiri Chetty, and (3) S. Rajanna Chetty (petitioners (2) to (4)). They were also assessed to income-tax.4. In response to a notice under Section 139(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the petit...
M.E. Hameed and ors. Vs. K.M. Sheriff Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ79
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is filed by plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O.S. No. 77 of 1967 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. In the lower Court one Tajuddin was the 1st plaintiff. The defendant was Sheriff Rowther, the 1st respondent in the appeal. Tajuddin is the 2nd respondent.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 for the removal of the defendant from Muthavalliship of the Madrasa Ismail at Melacauvery, Kumbakonam, to settle a scheme for the proper administration of the wakf created by one Ismailsa Rowther by a document dated 20th April, 1927, to direct the defendant to render accounts and to recover possession of the wakf properties in favour of the persons appointed under scheme and for costs.3. According to the plaint allegations, one Ismailsa Rowther by a document dated 20th April, 1927 dedicated the suit properties as wakf properties. The suit J properties are about 76 and odd acres in extent comprising of valuable lands in Tanjore District. Ismail...
Sri Satyapromoda theertha Swamigal of Uttaradi Mutt Through His Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ606
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal filed the suit O.S. No. 219 of i 962, on the file of the District Munsif of Manamadurai, for recovery of Rs. 548-6-6 as money wrongly adjusted by the defendant while fixing the quit rent and cess under the provisions of the Rent Reduction Act (XXX of 1947). According to the plaintiff the suit claim represents Rs. 399-6-6 by way of cess and Rs. 189 by way of peishcush, which the defendant is said to have illegally collected by way of adjustment. The defendant, State of Madras resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff Mutt is liable to pay the sume by way of quit rent and tat it has been paying the same in the past all along even prior to the notification under the Rent Reduction Act. The defendant also averred that the plaintiff had not collected any part of the cess from any of the ryots ostensibly on some agreement with them. The defendant also did not collect any cess from the ryots concerned after the introduction of th...
Muniswamy Reddiar and ors. Vs. S. Ramamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad406
1. Appeal by defendants 2 to 4 in the mortgage suit, O. S. 51 of 1957 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vel-lore, against the final decree passed against them. The suit mortgage was executed by the first defendant, Rama-chandra Reddiar, the father of the appellants, on 16-10-1948, for Rs. 30,000 in favour of Abdul Hadi and Azeesullah Basha Saheb, in discharge of two prior promissory notes executed by him for Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 on 17-8-1946 and 9-10-1946, and a sum of Rs. 15,000 alleged to have been reserved with the mortgagees, which was not actually received by him. Ramachandra Reddiar was adjudged insolvent in I.P. 13 of 1947, Sub-Court, Vellore in January 1947. The Official Receiver filed I.A. 12 of 1951 on 8-1-1951 under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and the Subordinate Judge set aside the transaction under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act But on appeal by the mortgagees, the District Judge in C.M.A. 38 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, ...
A. Subramanyam and ors. Vs. B. Yegnanarayaniah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ46
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Issue No. 1 framed in this suit has been heard as preliminary issue and it thus reads:Is the suit not maintainable for want of sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The relevant facts are these. One Vavilla Venkateswara Sastrulu was possessed of extensive properties both at Madras and at Nellore in Andhra Pradesh. He was also conducting a printing and publishing concern known as 'Vavilla Ramaswamy Sastrulu and Sons', reputed for the publication in classical, religions, devotional and literary works in Sanskrit, Telugu, Tamil, Hindi, etc. He died intestate and issueless on 9th April, 1956 leaving his widow, Vavilla Sub-bamma, who became entitled to all the properties of her husband with absolute powers under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. With a view to cater to the spiritual beatitude of her husband and for the perpetuation of the trust carried on by her husband, Vavilla Subbamma executed a deed of trust on 30th June 1956....
T.R. Subbaraman and ors. Vs. State by Inspector of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1185
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The point raised in these petitions is whether the dismissal of the petitioners by the authorities on a conviction recorded by the trial court while their appeals against their convictions are pending, is valid under law,2. In Cri. M. P. 3311 of 1968, the petitioner was convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year, by the Special Judge, Salem, by his judgment dated 15-5-1968. Against the said conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal in this Court in C. A. 332 of 1968 which was admitted on 17-5-1968. After conviction while the appeal is still pending, the Collector of Salem by his proceedings dated 12-11-1968, dismissed the petitioner from service from the date on which he was placed under suspension, namely, with effect from 20-11.1966 (afternoon).3. In Cri. M. P. 759 of 1969, the petitioner was convicted under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Pre...
Mara Naicker Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Harijan Welf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ347
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. Lands in Survey Numbers 384/1; 384/2 and 384/3, 390/2, 391/1 and 391/2, 397 and 425/1 and 425/2 were acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to enable the Harijans in, Nallathupalayam to have a short-cut from their colony to Tirupur, a place where they were working. The Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 27th October, 1965, and the Declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act was published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 1st March, 1967. It is to quash these land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner who happens to be one of the joint pattadars of the acquired lands has filed the present writ petition.2. Mr. N.R. Chandran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended in the first place that there was really no public purpose involved in the acquisition because the two places Nallathupalayam and Tirapur were connected by two other routes and therefore there w...
Zenith Lamps and Electricals Vs. Additional Commissioner of Workmen's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ103Mad; (1970)2MLJ229
Ismail, J.1. The second respondent was the employee under the petitioner herein and his services were terminated by an order dated 16th February, 1966. Prior to this order certain charges were framed against the second respondent. However, it is admitted before me that subsequent to the framing of the charges, actually no inquiry was conducted and no evidence was recorded. It is under these circumstances, the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Madras Act 36 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first respondent herein, who is the appellate authority, by an order dated 13 July, 1967, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination of the services passed by the petitioner against the second respondent herein. It is to quash this order of the first respondent, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.2. For the purpose of appreciating the argument o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›