Chennai Court October 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.
Srinivasa Ginning Factory, Srivilliputtur Vs. the Madras State Electri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad309
1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 267 of 1966, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Srivilliputtur. The respondent, the Madras State Electricity Board, found on inspection of the plaintiff's premises on 3rd July 1958 and 1st December 1964 that seven lights of 40 watts each had been connected with power service in order to have the benefit of lower tariff. The test reports Exs. B-3 and B-4 were disputed by the petitioner on the ground that the signature of P.W. 1, its Managing partner, were obtained on blank forms. But the courts below negatived the said contention and relied on the test reports and the evidence of the Junior Engineer examined as the sole witness on the side of the Board. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of fact in this respect.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, urged that there is no proof that the lights were burning, apart from the evidence of D.W. 1, the Junior Engineer, who made the inspection on 1st December 1964...
P. Shankar Rao Vs. the Government of India, Represented by the Home Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ302
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This petition has been filed by one Thiru Shankar Rao under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11th August, 1969 of the Government of India compulsorily retiring him from the Indian Administrative Service. The impugned order reads as follows:In pursuance of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, the President in consultation with the Government of Tamil Nadu, is pleased to order the retirement of Thiru P. Shankar Rao, who has already attained the age of 55 years from Indian Administrative Service Cadre of Tamil Nadu, in public interest, on the expiry of three months from the date of service of this orderThe first respondent in the petition is the Government of India and the second respondent is the Government of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner who was born on 12th May, 1914 was appointed as Probationary Deputy Collector of the Madra...
Karuppa Goundar Vs. Chinna Angappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ252
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S No. 235 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif Tiruppur. The respondent Chinna Angappa Gounder filed I.A. No. 1809 of 1966 in the said suit as the representative-in-interest of the first defendant in the suit under Sections 146 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the compromise decree and it is against the order allowing the amendment, the petitioner-second defendant has come forward with this Civil Revision petition.2. Unfortunately, the compromise entered into between the parties in the suit was not made part of the decree. On account of this defect, the decree drafted in the suit referred to the common carttrack as proceeding also to the south of survey field No. 295 which is not mentioned in the compromise. The learned District Munsif in allowing the amendment has merely brought the decree in accordance with the compromise in the suit. Sri K. Ramaswami appearing for the petitioner is not able...
Sinnaiyan and ors. Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ342
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the petition schedule properties belonging to the petitioners. For the purpose of starting small scale industries, the Government of Pondicherry issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 17th January, 1969. In the schedule to the notification, three items of properties Were described with survey numbers and extents, which were 1682, 1683 and 1684, the extends being 25.90 acres, 38.90 acres and 17.40 acres respectively. A notice under Section 5-A was issued to the petitioners on 1st April, 1969, containing the same description as regards survey numbers and extents. That notice was served on the petitioners on 11th April, 1969. The notice inter alia stated that if there was any objection to the proposed acquisition, it should be filed within 30 days from the date of service ...
The Rishiyur Panchayat Represented by the President Vs. the Revenue Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ341
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner as the President of the Rishiyur Panchayat in the Tanjore District has come up to this Court for the issue ol a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Collector of Tanjore, dated 21st May, 1966. The facts are as. Follows:2. There are nine tanks within the panchayat area and according to the petitioner these tanks being public sources of water supply became vested in the panchayat under Section 84(1) of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, in fact, passed an order, dated 31stJDecember, 1963 that the aforesaid tanks did vest in the panchayat within the meaning of Section 84(1) of the Act. After such a declaration was made, the third respondent claiming to be a trustee of the local temple and claiming that the temple had certain immemorial rights attached to and inhered in the said tanks, filed what he termed as an appeal or a revision to the Collector of Tanjore who, after due enquiry and aft...
Shanmugathammal and ors. Etc. Vs. Valliappan Alias Vallinayagam and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ149
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1768 of 1966 and 615 of 1967 have been filed by respondents 2 to 5, and 6 and 7 respectively in R.P. No. 1 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Sivakasi, wherein an order for restoration of possession of the lands involved therein was made against them. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1769 of 1966 and 616 of 1967 have been filed by respondents 2 to 5 and 7 to 9, and respondents 10 to 12 respectively in R.P. Nos. 2 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Sivakasi against the order for restoration of certain other lands. One Valliyappan alias Vallinayagam filed the above R.P. Nos. 1 of 1965 and 2 of 1965 Under Section 4 (5) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' for restoration of possession of two sets of lands. It was his case that the lands involved in both the petitions belonged to the first respondent therein, that he took the wet lands covered by R.P.No. 1 of 1965 in fasli 13...
The Nilambur Kovilagam, by Receiver-cum-commissioner Sri T.R. Balakris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ255
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. If the lands of the petitioners are held to be janmam lands and constitute janmam estate as defined in the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969, the provisions of the Act will apply to the lands, and as janmam lands, they will be an estate within the inclusive definition of the term in Article 31-A(2) and the Act will also receive the protection of Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution. But, if, on the other hand, as alleged by the petitioners what were janmam lands became in course of time ryotwari lands, the said Act (to be referred to hereafter as Janmam Estates Abolition Act) will have no application to them. As the petitions raise a common question, we shall refer to the facts in W.P. No. 117 of 1970, since they are typical of those in the others. The petitioner in that case is O'Valley Estates Ltd., which is a company engaged in plantation industry and is cultivating and manufacturing tea and other plantations products in O...
South India Insurance Co., Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ373
R. Sadasivam, J.1. The second petitioner in these petitions, the Madras Circle pipe Dealers' Association Ltd, now Tubes and Malleables Limited placed orders with Indian Tube Company, Ltd., for supply of galvanised R.L.S. and Section light tubes. The goods were despatched from Tata Nagar, but when the second petitioner took delivery of the same, there was shortage. The second petitioner had insured the goods with the South India Insurance Company Ltd., the first petitioner herein, and recovered the value of the goods short delivered. Both the petitioners joined together and filed the four suits, 5393, 5394, 5395 and 5398 of 1962, to recover Rs. 270.55, being the value of 3 bundles of 9 lengths, short delivered in the first suit, Rs. 276.48 being the value of 4 bundles of 12 lengths, short delivered in the second suit, Rs. 899.98, being the value of 36 lengths short delivered in the third suit, in respect of one railway receipt, R.R. No. 168861, as the value of 21 lengths short delivered...
Natarajan Vs. Chandmull Amarchand by Power-of-attorney, K. Milopchand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ474
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These two appeals are against a common order dated 14th November, 1966 of the learned Subordinate Judge of The Nilgiris, in proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 167 of 1955. The respondent-firm, Chandmull Amarchand, obtained a decree on 7th November, 1956 in O.S. No. 167 of 1955 on a number of promissory notes executed jointly by J.M. Thippa Gowder, K. Petha Maistry and B. Gujja Gowder. The claim was barred against Petha Maistry and he died before the suit. Thippa Gowder also died before the suit. The suit was filed against one J.T. Joghee, the son of J.M. Thippa Gowder, in his capacity as manager of the joint family. Joghee was impleaded as the first defendant and Gujja Gowder as the second defendant. The decree was against B. Gujja Gowder personally and against the assets of J.M. Thippa Gowder in the hands of J.T. Joghee and the joint family. The decree was for Rs. 21,000 odd. E.P. No. 113 of 1960 was filed on 12th October, 1959 for impleading th...
The Management of Nagapattinam Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Madras and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad358; (1971)IIMLJ347
1. The validity of the Madras Electricity Supply undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954 (Madras Act XXIX of 1954) is assailed on grounds of legislative competency, repugnancy of its provisions to those of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Central Act 32 of 1959), and also as violative of Arts. 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. Kailasam J. held against the appellants, the Nagapattinam Electric Supply Co. Ltd. and the Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Both are public limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1913 and carried on the business of distributing and supply electrical energy within the limits respectively of Nagapattinam and of the revenue taluks of Kumbakonam. Papanasam and part of Thanjavur taluk. They did so under licences granted by the then Province of Madras under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The licence in favour of the first of them was under G. O. Ms. 1822 Works dated 22-8-1933 for a period of 20 years in the first instance. It was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »