Chennai Court December 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.
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Madurai Printing Tape ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1970
Reported in: [1971]28STC431(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The question in this tax case is whether tape, which is produced by cotton threads pasted together parallelwise is textile within the meaning of entry 4 of the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. If it is, the assessee, who is the respondent, is entitled to exemption from tax on the related turnover, under Section 8 of the Act. Differing from the departmental view, the Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal held in his favour.2. Entry 4 aforesaid is : All varieties of textiles (other than durries, carpets, druggets and pure silk cloth) made wholly or partly of cotton, staple fibre, rayon, artificial silk and wool, including handkerchiefs, towels, napkins, dusters, cotton velvets and velveteen, tapes, niwars and laces and hosiery cloth in lengths. Specific mention having been made of tape in the entry, the revenue contends that the term would apply only to tape made of threads as a result of weaving. The tape now in question, which is shown to us, ...
Ramanatha Reddy Vs. K.V. Kuppuswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad419
1. The only point that arises in this appeal is as to whether the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder can continue the Execution Petition filed by him without a succession certificate. One Natesa Mudaliar obtained a decree against the appellant herein in O.S. 128 of 1964 and he filed E. P. 118 of 1965 in Sub-Court, Vellore. During the pendency of the said E. P., the said Natesa Mudaliar died and his widow, sons and daughters filed E. A. 364 of 1969 for impleading themselves as his legal representatives and to continue the E. P. further. The appellant-judgment-debtor raised the objection that the legal representatives cannot be allowed to continue the E. P. without production of a succession certificate. This objection was overruled by the executing Court, and the respondents herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder and the execution was allowed to proceed. The matter was taken in appeal to the District Court, North Arcot a...
S. Kalam Vs. the Secretary to Government Home Department, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad430
ORDER1. On the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as a member of the public to take such action as is available to him in law, so as to apprise the licensing authorities under the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1965, not to issue or to renew a licence for cinematographic exhibition, this petition has to fail.2. The petitioner is a dealer in textiles and is having his place adjacent to Roxy Theatre, in Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. According to the petitioner, people visiting the cinema house assemble in front of his shop in a queue to purchase tickets for entry into the cinema house and this assemblage is causing a nuisance to the petitioner and his trade. It is on this ground that the petitioner has come up to this court for a writ of Mandamus directing the licensing authorities to forbear from renewing the licence issued to the respondent. Though this is in the nature of a quia timet action which is of a continuing nature, yet this court cannot entertain a petit...
Ratnavelu Mudaliar Vs. Thangammal by Power-of-attorney Agent M. Gurusw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ263
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant is a judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 241 of 1955, District Munsif's Court, Sholingur. The widow of the decree-holder in that suit, who is the first respondent herein filed an application for execution of the decree obtained in that suit on 2nd February, 1969. In that application, the first respondent sought to execute the decree as the legal representative of the decree-holder, and she also sought for recording her name as the legal representative of the decree-holder. There was some return by the Court and ultimately that execution petition was not pressed. There was a second execution petition filed on 9th February, 1962. Therein the first respondent again sought to execute the decree as the legal representative of the decree-holder by producing a succession certificate. Somehow, that execution petition also was not prosecuted further but dismissed as not pressed. Later, on 8th February, 1965, a third execution petition was filed and that also was d...
Vadivelu Mudaliar Vs. C.N. Kuppuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1970
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ265
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant who claims to be the eldest male heir to the founder of a trust, filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to-administer the trust created by his forefathers and for possession of the suit properties from the defendants to administer the trust as trustee. The suit was. dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput. Hence the appeal.2. To appreciate the facts and the contentions raised by the parties in this appeal, it is necessary to note the following pedigree:Thylamma : Muniappa (d. 1858) : Perundevi| | || ______________________________________________Ponnambala1 Subbaraya Arunachala (d. 1898)Adopted Natesa:KalyanasundarammalMurugesa (d.) Annamalai Muniappa(No sons) (No sons)Subbaraya : Natesan (d. 1937) (d. 1958)Andalammal (d. 8)____________________________________________________________________| | | |Raraaswami (d.) Lakshmana Murugesa (d.) Muniappa (d.)(No issues) | |Kuppuswami Doraiswami (d.)______________________________...
Venkitammal and anr. Vs. Janaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ366
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The Judgment-debtors, whose properties have been sold in execution of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 79 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif, Sattur and whose application for setting aside the sale had been dismissed, are the petitioners herein. The execution sale was sought to be set aside mainly on three grounds : (1) that the Court had given permission to the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 72, Civil Procedure Code, to bid and set-off without notice to the petitioners, (2) that such leave to bid and set-off had been given even at the first sale, and (3) that there has been a gross inadequacy in the price when the decree-holder purchased the properties at Rs. 2,100 while the properties are alleged to be worth more than a Rs. 40,000. As regards the first and second grounds, the first Court overruled them and held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, do not contemplate that a notice to the judgment-debtor should be given before leave to bid a...
Murlimal Santharam and Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Narsinsingh Ghans ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ410
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. The unamended plaint in C.S. No. 226 of 1962, prayed for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property without any consequential relief. Upon the applications of the plaintiff in Application Nos. 2104 and 2105 of 1969, this Court by order, dated 12th February, 1970, granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the plaint by impleading certain third parties in possession and by including a prayer for recovery of possession from those persons. According to the office, deficit Court-fee has to be paid upon the amended plaint as per the Court-fees Act, in force on the date of the original plaint. But the contention of the plaintiff is that deficit Court-fee is payable, not under the law relating to the Court-fee as it prevailed on the date of the original plaint, but under the law which was in force on the date of the amendment of the plaint.2. In C.S. No. 118 of 1967, the original plaint prayed for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an appli...
Palaniappa Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Babu Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ22
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. One Khaji Peer Batcha Sahib leased out a vacant site of 21 cents in. survey field No. 894 Chinnaveedhi to the father of the petitioners herein for a period of ten years on a monthly rental of Rs. 3. The lease contained a covenant against subletting. On the grounds that the tenant, father of the petitioners 2 to 9, had sublet the land to various persons and that he had also committed wilful default in payment of the rents a petition for eviction was filed before the Rent Controller by respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the settlees from the original owner Khaji Peer Batcha Saheb in respect of the suit property. The Rent Controller passed an order for eviction which has also been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities constituted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This revision in directed against that eviction order. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that the proceedings for eviction before the Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›