Chennai Court April 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.N. Ramakrishnan Vs. C. Kerala Chand and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad150
ORDER1. The tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He had taken on lease premises No. 49-A Upper Bazar, Ooty, on a rent of Rs. 35 per mensem. On 13-8-1965, the landlords issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to pay Rs. 595 which was the amount due to them as rent. This notice was served on the petitioner-tenant on 18-8-1965. The petitioner-tenant gave a rely on 25-8-2965 in which he denied his liability to pay Rs. 595 and also contended that the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 17-1-1966, the landlords filed a petition for exiction of the petitioner-tenant on various grounds namely, willful default etc. They claimed arrears of rent upto that date Rs. 770. On 25-2-1966 an ex parte order was passed against the tenant. It was restored on 18-3-1966 and time was granted for filing written statement (counter)....
K.N. Ramakrishnan Vs. G. Keral Chand and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ386
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The tenant under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He had taken on lease premises No. 49-A, Upper Bazaar, Ooty, on a rent of Rs. 35 per mensem. On 13th August, 1965, the landlords issued a notice to the petitioner-tenant terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to pay Rs. 595 which was the amount due to them as rent. This notice was served on the petitioner-tenant on 18th August, 1965. The petitioner-tenant gave a reply on 25th August, 1965, in which he denied his liability to pay Rs. 595 and also contended that the notice was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 17th January, 1966, the landlords filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on various grounds, namely, wilful default etc. They claimed arrears of rent upto that date Rs. 770. On 25th February, 1966, an ex parte order was passed against the tenant. It was restored on 18th ...
In Re: Nattayyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ668
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The point involved in this reference and revision is whether it is necessary to frame a charge under Section 75, Indian Penal Code, by the Magistrate in Warrant Cases for proving previous conviction for the purpose of awarding enhanced sentence to the accused convicted of offences punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Code with imprisonment of either description of a term of three years or upwards.2. The brief facts leading to the reference by the learned District Magistrate, North Arcot are these : During the scrutiny of calendar and judgments of the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Vellore, the learned District Magistrate noticed that the accused who was the same in C.C. Nos. 117 to 119 of 1968 on the file of the said Court was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under each of the two counts viz., 457 (latter part) and 380, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently, though he was previously convicted by...
Madras Port Trust by Its Chairman Vs. Jal. E. Khambatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ567Mad
R. Sadasivam, J.1. The respondent-plaintiff Khambatta was employed as a dredging master and engineer in respect of the dredgers owned by the appellant, the Madras Port Trust. In 1961, some charges of misappropriation were framed against him for not properly accounting for certain materials entrusted to him during the period 1956 to 1959 and he was removed from service. The respondent-plaintiff was a subscriber to the provident fund and on his removal from service the question came up for consideration whether he was entitled to be paid the entire provident fund amount standing to his credit, made up of his own contributions together with interest thereon amounting Rs. 8,143-75, the Board's contribution together with interest thereon amounting to Rs. 9,015-60 and the special contribution made by the Board to the provident fund. But so far the special contribution is concerned, Regulation 11 of the Madras Port Trust Regulations relating to provident fund and gratuity hereinafter referred...
Easwaran Chettiar Vs. K. Subbarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad163
1. In this civil revision petition the tenant who is the aggrieved party is the petitioner. The landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he bona fide required the non-residential building in the occupation of the petitioner for purposes of his own business, and the petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner resisted the same on the ground that the respondent was occupying a non-residential building of his own for purposes of his oil business, and there was no bona fides in the application either. The landlord (respondent) succeeded before the Rent Controller, but failed before the appellate authority. On a further revision petition to the District Judge, West Thanjavur, the Court allowed the revision petition by agreeing with the Rent Controller, and directed eviction. The matter came before Kailasam, J., and the learned Judge, after hearing the parties made the followi...
Bhanji Bagawandass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR155(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This tax case is set before us on a remand of the case made by the Supreme Court in its order in Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 1966. We shall extract the relevant portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to appreciate the scope of the order of remand. We shall be, therefore, quoting in extenso the necessary excerpts from the judgment which touches both questions of fact as well as law.2. The assessment year involved in this appeal is 1948-49, the corresponding previous year being the financial year 1947-48, For the accounting period from November 13, 1947, to November 1, 1948, which was the corresponding previous year for the assessment, year 1949-50, there was shown a credit of Rs. 25,000 in the capital account of the appellant. On November 13, 1947, this amount was credited in the books of the appellant. On October 30, 1948, this amount was transferred to the account of one Amrithlal Ranchoodas, the father-in-law of the appellant. The Income-tax Officer...
In Re: Mrs. Constance Lubeck
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: [1970]78ITR199(Mad)
Palaniswamy, J. 1. This office note raises an important question on court-fee. The point is whether estate duty payable on an estate, which vests in the executor, is an Hern to be deducted from the value of the estate in ascertaining the market value for the purpose of court-fee under the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Madras Act XIV of 1955)., hereinafter referred to as the Act. The matter has arisen in this way. The petitioner, National and Grlndlays Bank Ltd., Madras, has applied for the grant of probate of the will of one Mrs. Constance Lubeck dated 25-1-1968. Along with the petition, an affidavit of assets, as contemplated under Section 55 of the Act, is filed. In annexure 'B' of the affidavit of assets a sum of Rs. 11,043.46 is shown as provisional estate duty under the heading 'Amount of debts due and owing from the deceased payable by law out of the estate'. The office felt a doubt whether estate duty is a debt due from the deceased and whether it can be deduc...
Hehnamann Homeo Institute, by Proprietor, Dr. S. Srinivasan Vs. Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ22
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is one Hehnamann Homeo Institute, Tiruvarur, Thanjavur District, by proprietor Dr. S. Srinivasan. He has sworn to an affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. In that affidavit he claims that he had obtained a licence to manufacture allopathic injections and homeopathic injections as well in 1948 itself in Licence Nos. 3 and 19 of 1948 in the list of which homeopathic injections were approved by the then Drug Controller of Madras State, that he himself was a qualified chemist under the said Drugs Act, that the licence was being renewed from year to year till 1951 and in the year 1951 when the licence was renewed, the wordings 'Homoeopathic' 'Injections' were removed as it was then found that it was unnecessary under the Drugs Act then, that the licence was being renewed year after year till 1959: that in the year 1966 he applied for licence for homeopathic medicines and injections to the third respondent herein, namely,...
A. Gurusamy Pillai Vs. the Commissioner, Salem Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ385
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The facts proved on the basis of the record are that the accused-petitioner sent an application to the Executive Authority of the Salem Municipality on 23-2-1968 which is apparent by the remittance of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 5/-. Ex facie this constitutes the proof of the fact that Exhibit P-3 was sent at the latest by 23-2-1968.2. It is unnecessary for me to consider the endorsement on Exhibit P-3 made by the Sanitary Inspector dated 20-4-1968 or about the contents of Exhibit P-2, notice of prosecution, dated 23-5-1968, in view of Sub-section (11) of Section 321 of the Madias District Municipalities Act, 1920.3. The relevant portion of sub-section 11 is extracted below:.but an applicant for the renewal of a licence or permission or registration shall until communication of orders on his application be entitled to act as if the licence or permission or registration had been renewed; and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if orders on an ...
Easun Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ67; [1970]26STC486(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This writ petition arises in proceedings under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner who did not canvass the propriety of the assessing authority in respect of a portion of its turnover and did not file any ground of appeal to that effect before the appellate authority appears to have argued that position before the appellate authority and claimed relief. The appellate authority not being seized of the matter was obliged to consider only the subject-matter of the appeal. As against the order of the appellate authority the petitioner took up the same to the Appellate Tribunal and it appears from the record that even there in the first instance, its dispute was about the subject-matter which was agitated before the appellate authority. But some time later it filed an application for reception of additional grounds of appeal, which, according to the petitioner, was necessitated because of the pronouncement of this court in Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. Joint C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›