Chennai Court January 1970 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.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. B.P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad349
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This Is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The question is-'Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the sale deed dated 7-4-1965 executed by Thirumathi Pattammal and Pushpavathi Ammal in favour of the respondent herein is absolutely void in law from the beginning and the refund Of the value of stamps affixed on the instrument in question can be allowed?'The facts stated by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are that after the conveyance, it was found that the vendor had no title to the property covered by the document and, for that reason, the vendor executed another document conveying a different property. The first sale deed was valued' as a conveyance.. The point is whether because the vendor had no title, it could be regarded as one found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning within the meaning of Section 49(d) of the Stamp Act.2. The sale deed contained, besides the operative part of the conveyance, covenants as t...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad348
1. This is a reference under the Stamp Act, the question being whether a document styled as partition and release dated 15th June, 1959, should be termed as a conveyance, which should attract duty under Art. 23 in the schedule to the Stamp Act. By a deed dated 17th January, 1957, the respondent's mother to whom the property belonged absolutely settled a life interest in favour of the respondent' and his minor son, reserving at the same time a similar interest in herself, and further providing that after her death and of her son, the remainder should, vest absolutely in the respondent's son and his brothers. The document dated 15th June, 1959, which followed an arbitration relating to the family properties of the respondent, his father and his son and to which the respondent's mother was party, purported to divide the family properties in accordance with the terms of the award. The document also dealt with the property that was the subject-matter of the earlier document.The operative pa...
In Re: S.P. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ540
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 3(2) and (7) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949.2. In essence, the complaint of the prosecution is that in S. No. 567 of Nelliyalam Village, the forest officials found one Ramakrishnan cutting earth and clearing the undergrowth for about a quarter acre and building the shed therein. On the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that there has been clearance of the undergrowth in the area in question (41/2 grounds), mainly the conviction is based.3. Mr. R. Vaidyanatha Iyer, Counsel for the Petitioner assailed the conviction on the ground that the learned Sub-Magistrate has really misappreciated the evidence on record; that the learned Magistarate has further erred in interpreting the proviso to Section 3 (2) of the Act.4. P.W. 1 states in chief-examination that one Ramakrishnan has cut the earth and was building a shed measuring 22'X 12'. The earth was cut for abou...
R. Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Suramangalam Town Panchayat by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ546
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, the owner of a cinema theatre, in Suramangalam, Salem District, questioning the enhancement of property tax by the Panchayat. The tax for this theatre for the half-year ending 31st March, 1959, was only Rs. 233-87. This was increased for the half-year ending 30th September, 1959 to Rs. 622-92. On 16th November, 1959, the appellant requested the Executive Officer to furnish information as to the basis of the assessment. On the same day, the latter informed him that the tax was determined on the basis of a rental value of Rs. 800 per mensem. On his appeal, the tax was reduced to Rs. 467-10. This was on the basis of a monthly rental value of Rs. 600. They added the water tax and library cess and demanded Rs. 774.12 for the succeeding half-year. The appellant's petition to the Collector of Salem, did not have any effect. Thereupon, he filed the suit for recovering Rs. 1,273-08 paid as tax. He contended ...
A.S. Krishnamurthi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Saidapet, Chinglepu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad236
1. (3-12-1969): For setting up the Industrial Estate, Guindy, certain plots of land on the outskirts of the City but in Alandur Village were acquired by issuing a notification dated October 12, 1960 under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant owns a build-up bungalow and the extent of the land owned by him and in a portion of which the superstructure is built is 14 centers or 2 grounds and 1080 sq. ft. approximately. This is comprised in S. No. 32/2. The appellant in the court below claimed that the property acquired should be evaluated on the rental basis, and even so in this Court he maintains that on such basis he would be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,884-21, as against Rs. 18,498-69 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and confirmed by the Court on reference under Section 18 of the Act.2. Two alternative contentions, however, have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. According to the memo of valuation which rests upon the rental basis syste...
T.E. Mohammed Shareef Vs. the Superintendent (Wakfs), Central Zone and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad243
ORDER1. According to the averments contained in the affidavit, the petitioner herein, is the Mutavalli of the institution known as Kuppatheruvu Pallivasal in Thanjavur. According to him, the property covered by T. S. No. 33-C is the only property belonging to the Wakf and the properties covered by T. S. Nos. 33/2 to 33/15 are his private properties. The further case of the petitioner is that some persons inimically disposed towards him moved the Wakf Board in W. A. 41 of 1962 for the framing of a scheme and removal of the petitioner from the office of Mutavalli on the ground of mismanagement and on the ground that the petitioner was claiming adverse to the interests of the wakf. The affidavit further states that the Board was not satisfied with the general allegations of mismanagement against the petitioner, but found one instance of alienation of the trust property as improper and on that basis removed the petitioner from the office of mutavalli. At the same time, the Board, in regard...
Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR677(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of yarn. During the accounting year ending with March 31, 1959, the assessee set up a new industrial undertaking which admittedly satisfied the requirements of Section 15C(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, with which we are concerned in thisreference. The assessment year in question is 1961-62. The profit, depreciation and development rebate in respect of this unit for the two assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 were as under :ProfitDepreciation & development rebate Rs.Rs. 1959-6033,1181,44,361 1960-613,64,6725,07,336(Development rebate) 3,19,591 1,17,205' 3,97,79010,88,493 2. In the assessment year 1959-60, the total profit of the old and new units amounted to Rs. 2,42,432 which after the set-off of the amount ofdepreciation and development rebate left a sum of Rs, 24,183 to be carried forward. In the assessment year 1960-61, the composite business incomewas Rs. 14,13,...
A.S. Krishnamurthi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ692
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. A.S. No. 414 of 1964 is an appeal directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, who in an interlocutory application before him, in a Land Acquisition case which was originally referred to Court under Section 18 of the Act, allowed interest on the excess compensation granted, but in accordance with Section 28 of the Act. When the reference was disposed of in the first instance, the Court in its judgment fixed the compensation in the instant case at the rate of four annas per square foot with solatium etc. He granted three months' time for deposit of the excess. In the decree which followed, no interest was provided. The claimant (respondent) filed an application under Sections 141 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondent's case was that by a clerical error the provision regarding interest was omitted in the decree and that as he was entitled to interest on the excess...
P. Vairamani Ammal Vs. K.N.K.R.M. Kannappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ689
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 ; the tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord applied for eviction before the Rent Controller from the building which was in the occupation of the petitioner and used as a rice and flour mill. Eviction was sought on the ground of requirement of the leased premises for his own use. The landlord was conducting a charity which consisted of distribution of water--thanneerpandal--at Tirupparankundram, in a rented building in the same street. The petition was opposed, on various grounds. It was submitted that the landlord lacked bona fides, that no proper notice was given and that in any event the activity of carrying on thanneerpandal charity would not be ' business which would entitle the landlord to claim vacant possession.' The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. But on appeal the Sub-Court, Madurai, granted an order of eviction. The tenant took the matter up t...
The Jawaharpuram Devanga Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-01-1970
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC52
ORDER1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 626, Housing dated 05.04.1978 in publishing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981 in issuing Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on the file of the first respondent and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.05.1981 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding with acquisition of the Petitioner's land comprised in G.S.No. 236, Kavundampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk measuring 3.27 acres.2. The brief facts of the case is stated as follows:-The petitioner society purchased an extent of 3.27 acres comprised in G.S.No.236, Kavandampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1968 with a view to locate a Housing Colony for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »