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.
K. Ganapathy Vs. Vaidyalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad425
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 39 of 1964 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil is the appellant before this court. The appellant and respondent are brothers and admittedly the respondent executed the suit promissory note, namely, Ex. A. 1 dated 9th December 1959 in favour of the appellant for Rs. 4,000 repayable with interest at 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the promissory note. Equally admittedly the promissory note was executed by the respondent in consideration of the share of the business he obtained under Ex. A. 2 dated 23-4-1135 (M. E.), a copy of the partition deed entered into between the respondent and the appellant. The suit itself was instituted on 10th October 1964 With reference to the date of promissory note, namely, 9th December 1959.certainly on 10th October 1964 the suit was barred by limitation. In order to escape from this bar of limitation, the appellant relied on the deposition of the respondent in O.S. No. 153 of 1961 on the file o...
K. Satyamurti and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad385
1. What is the effect of enfranchisement of what is known as the Pudukottai Inams on the tenure as such? That is the common question in these petitions to quash the notification of the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 1612 Revenue dated 24-5-1965 designating a number of inam villages specified therein as New Inam Estate under Section 2(9) of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act XXVI of 1963). The notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 1(4) of the Act. It appointed the Ist July 1965 as the date on which the provisions of the Act, other than the sections which had already come into force, should come into force in the Pudukottai Inam Estates specified in column (3) of the Schedule to the notification. Nanjur alias Namanarayasamudram, an Inam village is one of the items in the schedule. the petitioners in W. P. 604 of 1967, which is taken as typical of the others, claims to own absolutely and to be in exclu...
M.S.M. Mangudi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ27
ORDER 1. The petitioner, a licensee under the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers' (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Order was carrying on business as a wholesaler in rice and paddy in Pallathur, Karaikudi sub-taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The Circle Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell. C. I. D., and a constable visited the place of business of the petitioner, entered into it and wanted the petitioner to show his accounts. The entry according to the petitioner was at about 4 A.M., but according to the respondents, it was at about 6 A.M. The officers who entered into the premises and began to search the same did not have any warrant to search the premises; nor were they accompanied by two respectable witnesses who are the inhabitants of the locality. It appears that the officers who conducted the raid seized certain account books of the petitioner besides 56 bags of raw rice, which were found inside the business premises. 2. Various contentions were ...
M.S.M. Buhari Vs. S.M. Buhari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad363
1. The appellant and the respondent were doing business at Colombo. The case of the respondent was that the appellant owed money to him and towards the repayment of that money issued two cheques in favour of the respondent drawn on the State Bank of India at Colombo on 1-4-1959 for Rs. 5000 and Rs. 1000 respectively and that when the respondent presented the cheques in the State Bank of India at Colombo for payment, they were dishonoured. Thereafter, the respondent filed the Suit No. 22518/S against the appellant on 22-7-1959 in the District Court, Colombo, for recovery of Rs. 6000 with interest thereon and the said suit was decreed on 30-11-1959 for Rs. 6000 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree. On the basis of this foreign decree and judgment, the respondent instituted O. S. 12 of 1962 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. On a plea taken by the appellant herein that the decree passed by the District Court. Colombo, not bei...
R. Thangasami Nadar Vs. Ar.A.S. Duraiswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad428; (1971)1MLJ249
ORDER1. These revisions filed by the tenant are directed against the orders of the District Judge. Tirunelveli, in M.C. Nos. 13 and 14 of 1968 setting aside the order of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti in E.P. Nos. 423 and 424 of 1967 holding that the petitioner had not committed willful default in payment of the rents and as such they are not liable to be evicted from the lease hold premises. The facts which gave rise to the above proceedings are as follows:2. The respondent who is the same in both the revisions filed R. C. O. P. 40 of 1964 and 1 of 1965 against the petitioner in both the revisions on the ground that he had committed willful default in payment of the rents. When the eviction petitions came up for hearing the petitioner and the respondent entered into a compromise and filed a compromise memo and in pursuance of the compromise memo the rent controller by his order dated 16-3-1965, after recording the fact that the earlier arrears of rent had been paid, directed that the...
S.K. Subramaniam and ors. Vs. N.S. Krishnamachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ211
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The lower Court in this case has refused to issue a commission for the examination of two of the petitioner's witnesses one living in Bombay, and another in Goa, who cannot be compelled to attend Court by ordinary process, and the revision is directed against the said order of the lower Court. The petitioner contends that as a matter of right he is entitled to have the commission issued for the examination of the said witnesses. The Respondent, however, contends that it was entirely a matter for the discretion of the Court and that the lower Court has exercised the discretion properly in refusing to issue a commission.2. The practice in English Courts undoubtedly is that it is a matter of judicial discretion for the trial Court to issue a commission. The practice in India, however, has not been uniform. Wallace, J. in Jagannatha Sastri v. Sarathambal Ammal : AIR1923Mad321 construed the word 'may' occurring in Order 21, rules 1 and 4 as being imperative, that is, the ...
In Re: Ramakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ496
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioner herein is the owner of a house in T.S. No. 2343 in Thanjavur municipal limits. There was a tax arrear of Rs. 8056 for four and a half years from 1966 till 1968. On 31st March, 1968, P.W. 1, the Bill Collector, went to his house with the distraint warrant Exhibit P-4 and demanded the tax. The petitioner told him that the tax was payable by his sons. There was an exchange of words. P.W. 2 directed the peon P.W. 4 to get the warrant book which he had kept on a cycle, which was outside. P.W. 4 went out to bring the warrant book. The petitioner followed him, brought the cycle inside, closed the second entrance door of the house, bolted it from within and stood at the entrance and thereby prevented P.W. 4 from entering in. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were inside were not able to go out. When P.W. 1 attempted to open the door, the petitioner pushed him and the bill book fell down. Thereupon pushing the petitioner aside, P.Ws. 1 and. 2 got out of the house and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›