Chennai Court August 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.M. Sundaram, Executive Committee Member, Communist Party of India, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ196
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, for issuing a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent, Inspector-General of Police, Madras, to produce respondents 2 to 10 before this Court and to direct them to be set at liberty on the ground that they have been illegally arrested and detained by the first respondent without any warrant or authority of law and that their detention in consequence of such unlawful arrest was illegal and improper.2. The petitioner who claims to be the Executive Committee member, Communist Party of India, Tamil Nadu Committee filed an affidavit in support of this writ petition in which he stated that the Tamil Nadu Council of the Communist Party of India had decided to launch a movement throughout Tamil Nadu with regard to land grabbing and in pursuance of the said decision, the names of all those who would lead the peaceful Satyagraha in Tamil Nadu h...
D.N. Kamakshian Setty Vs. the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ500
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, who is admittedly a ministerial railway servant and who entered such service before 31st March, 1938, complains that he was prematurely retired from service by an order made to that effect by the respondents and that, therefore, the said order compulsorily retiring him from service, dated 1st May, 1970, has to be quashed. The order impugned reads that the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway, is of the opinion that it is in public interest that the petitioner should be directed to retire from service with effect from the forenoon of 6th August, 1970. This order apparently was issued in exercise of powers conferred upon the competent authorities under Clause (h) of Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II. The petitioner's case is that he had a clean record of service and that there was no occasion for any complaint of misconduct or insubordination by the Administration against him at any time p...
Nachimuthu Gounder Vs. Avalnaickenpatti Co-operative Society by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ24
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, Nachimuthu Gounder, is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 999 of 1967, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Namakkal, and he seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif that he should sue to set aside the sale held under the Co-operative Societies Act in his favour before he can claim relief in the suit and pay proper Court-fee for the same under Section 40(1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.2. The first respondent Society obtained a decree against the second respondent, a member of the Society on a mortgage executed by him and brought the hypo-theca to sale under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner was the auction-purchaser in the said sale. But, in a subsequent litigation with regard to the property, it is found that the second respondent owned only the southern half of the property known as Varadapillai Thottam, whereas what was mortgaged and brought to sale was the northern half belong...
Kamalammal Vs. M. Kanthamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ471
S. Maharajan, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is one of limitation. Kanthamma, the respondent herein, obtained a preliminary decree on 28th August, 1955 against one Veeraswami Chetti on foot of an equitable mortgage. A final decree was passed in pursuance thereof on 5th March, 1956. About a year after the final decree, Kamalamma, the appellant, obtained from Veeraswami Chetti, the judgment-debtor, a sale of the hypotheca. This sale deed did not provide for the discharge of the mortgage decree obtained by the respondent. Subsequently, the appellant instituted O.S. No. 578 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the respondent (mortgagee-decree-holder) and Veeraswami Chetti (mortgagor) praying for declaration that the mortgage decree was invalid. This suit was resisted by the respondent. Eventually, the parties entered into compromise in this suit whereby a joint endorsement on the plaint was made by the appel...
In Re: Rajakumar Bhagavatsaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ96
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. (1) Thiru Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran, the petitioner herein, stands charged with an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act before the Honorary Presidency Magistrate at Madras. He has filed the petition Criminal M.P. No. 1938 of 1970 for quashing these proceedings. He has filed an affidavit, and in it he has averred that he has initiated proceedings against certain Police Officers in competent Courts and that the present prosecution has been launched against him so as to make him withdraw these proceedings. He has further averred that on 8th June, 1970 at 9 A.M. one Gajapathy of Byrang Jang Bahadur Street, Madras, knocked at his door and abused him when he came out. He gave a phone message to the emergency policy. They came and took that person in the Van. He gave a complaint about it, but without proceeding against him, they have chosen to file a case against him under Section 75 of the City Police Act. He has also produced the summons received by him....
Ammaponnammal Vs. Shanmugam Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad370; (1971)1MLJ272
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 69 of 1962 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli is the appellant before this court. The plaintiff in the suit was her husband. He instituted the suit for recovery of possession of B schedule property in the plaint and for maintenance past and future. As far as the present appeal is concerned, before me it is confined only to the recovery of plaint B schedule property. Admittedly the said B schedule property was purchased in the name of the appellant under Ex. B-1 dated 18-8-1943. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that though the title deed stood in the name of the appellant, it was he who advanced the money for purchasing the property and it was he who was the beneficial owner of the property. Admittedly the husband and wife lived together till 1954, when the wife left the house of the husband and started living with her sister. The case of the appellant was that the consideration for the purchase of the prope...
Sengoda Nadar Vs. Doraiswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad380
1. Petitioner presented a plaint in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode, praying for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by him on 20th August, 1962 and 1st February, 1967, in favour of the first defendant, on the ground that the defendants took him to Erode and provided him with intoxicating drinks and liquors and secured the documents. He correctly classified the claim as one falling under Section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, but paid the Court-fee on the amounts for which the sale deeds were executed. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge returned the plaint to the petitioner, directing him to value the suit property according to the market value on the date of the suit. Hence the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition.2. Section 40 (1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is as follows:In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or o...
Ranganayaki Ammal and ors. Vs. P. Natesa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad277; (1971)IIMLJ19
ORDER1. This question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the execution application filed by the decree-holder in E. A. No. 2881 of 1963 on 16-9-1963 is barred by time under Art. 182 of the Limitation Act. The decree-holder in this case obtained on 10-3-1954 a decree against one Sundararajan Chetty and another. Sundararajan Chetti died on 20-2-1955. On 9-3-1957, the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 364 of 1957 praying for impleading Ranganayaki, the wife of Sundararaja Chetty as his legal representative and for execution of decree against the assets of Sundararaja Chetty in the hands of Ranganayaki. On the same day C. M. P. No 714 of 1957 was filed by the decree-holder praying for impleading Ranganayaki as a legal for impleading Ranganayaki as a legal representative. Evidently at the time when these petitions were filed, the decree-holder was not aware that the deceased Sundararaja Chetti had left him surviving not only his widow but also his two sons. Notice was taken...
Kamadhenu Metal Rolling Mills (P.) Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC536(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The question in these cases relates to the power of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, or default in appearance on the day fixed for hearing. In one of these cases, the affected party has filed a tax case under Section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to revise, and in the others, writ petitions to quash the orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals before it, for non-prosecution. On a similar question, W.P. No. 2102 of 1969 (Selvavinayakam and Company, Turmeric Merchants, Erode.... Petitioner v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Coimbatore represented by its Secretary.... Respondent) was dismissed in limine on the view that the Tribunal had the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. The court pointed out that the scheme of the Income-tax Act was entirely different, and that there was nothing in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which was inconsistent with the power to dismiss for default,...
Khamadenu Metal Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ505
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question in these cases relates to the power of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, or default in appearance on the day fixed for hearing. In one of these cases, the affected party has filed a Tax Case under Section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise, and in the others, writ petitions to quash the orders of the Tribunal dismiss-jag the appeals before it, for non-prosecution. On a similar question, Selvavinayakam and Co. v. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal W.P. No. of 1969 was dismissed in limine on the view that the Tribunal had the power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution. The Court pointed out that the scheme of the Income-tax Act was entirely different, and that there was nothing in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, which was inconsistent with the power to dismiss for default, expressly given by the Regulations framed under the Act. A contrary view was expressed by a different Bench subsequent...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »