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.
Sengoda Nadar Vs. Doraiswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ643
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.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 documen...
Arumugam Chettiar Vs. Sadasivam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ228a
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The third defendant in O.S. No. 629 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil, is the applicant herein. There was a decree in the suit on 31st March, 1965, for a sum of Rs. 2,700 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the first defendant in respect of which the second and third defendants were sureties. In execution of the decree in E.P. No. 411 of 1965, the appellant's properties were attached on 30th June, 1965. The appellant contended before the Courts below that the decree had made it clear that his liability was only as a surety and not as a principal debtor, and that the execution could be levied against him only after exhausting the remedies against the first defendant who is shown as the principal debtor in the decree. Both the Courts below overruled the objection raised by the appellant and allowed the execution to proceed. They had taken the view that as the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debt...
N. Yesudiyan Nadar Vs. the Assistant Inspector of Labour
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ437
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1.The petitioner was prosecuted by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Tirunelveli, for non.exhibition of the notice stating the hours of work in Form No. 5 as prescribed by Rule 27 of the Madras Motor Transport Workers' Rule3, 19G5. Section 36 of the Motor Transport Workers' Act, 1961 states that 'no Court shall take cognisance of an offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within 3 months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector.' It was contended before the trial Court that since the complaint was not filed by the Inspector as contemplated by 8. 36 of the Act, it was not sustainable. Section 4 (l) of the Act enables the State Government to appoint for the State by notification in the Official Gazette a duly qualified person to be the Chief Inspector and as many duly qualified persons to be Inspectors subordinate to the Chief Inspector as it thinks fit. By a notification dated ...
A. Sengayan Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by the Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ21
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short ground. The petitioner is an existing rice mill owner called Ramasekar Rice Mill at Pillathurai village, Musiritaluk, Tiruchy District. This Revenue village is included in Thathaiyankarpet Panchayat area. According to him there are three rice mills having a total hulling capacity of 1137,500 bags of paddy per year. The case of the petitioner is that he has invested more than Rs. 50,000 over the construction of his mill and in view of the fact that there are 7 rice mills in the vicinity, the paddy available to his own mill for hulling purposes is highly insufficient. While this is the state of affairs, it is stated, that the 3rd respondent applied to the first respondent through the 2nd respondent for the grant of a permit to establish a new rice mill at Arachi village which is, it is stated, within one mile from the existing mill of the petitioner. The petitioner objected to the grant. He also brought t...
V.R. Thulasai Sah (Died) and ors. Vs. Sri Katchapeswaraswamy Devasthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ639
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in O.S. No. 456 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kancheepuram are now the appellants before this Court. The suit properties were endowed for the purpose of performing the Uchikala Kattalai and general pooja in the Sri Katchapcswaraswamy temple. One Pandaram family was the kattalai trustees in respect of the suit properties, and Ekambaram Pandaram who was the kattalai trustee at the relevant time, mortgaged the suit properties in favour of the father of the first defendant in the suit, on 9th September, 1919 under Exhibit B-1. The trustees of the temple filed O.S. No. 224 of 1937 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kancheepuram for a declaration that the alienations effected in respect of the temple properties and Kattalai properties were not binding on the temple, and for recovery of possession of the same. One such alienation covered in that suit was Exhibit B-1, dated ...
Varadammal and anr. Vs. Ambalal J. Vyas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad371; (1971)1MLJ65
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. 135 of 1961 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, are the appellants before this court, and they are mother and son. The third defendant I the suit is the husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. He was carrying on business on behalf of the family consisting of himself and his minor son and in the course of the business, he had incurred considerable debts. I. P. 22 of 1955 was filed by one of his creditors on 29-3-1955. before the Sub. Court, Salem for adjudging the third defendant as insolvent. Similarly, I. P. 27 of 1955 was filed before the same court on 22-4-1955, by another creditor for adjudging the third defendant as insolvent. In order to avert an adjudication in the said insolvency proceedings, the third defendants compromised with his creditors and executed Ex. A-19 on 24-9-1956, being a composition trust deed in favour of all his creditors constituting the plaintiffs in the suit, who are respond...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. B.A. Mallaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad210
1. This is a reference under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, the question being whether the instrument under consideration is not liable to be stamped under Art. 45 of the Stamp Act as a deed of partition, or chargeable to duty as a release. The Revenue contends that having regard to its terms and true intention, the deed is a partition. But, on the other hand, it is said that inasmuch as one of the sharers was not allotted any joint family property to specie as and for his share, but the agreement was that the other sharers who were to take the entire joint family properties should, in consideration of the sharer releasing his interest in the joint family properties, pay a sum agreed upon, the deed operates as a release.2. There was one B. S. Mallayya who died in January 1935. He left two sons Sundararaj Mallayya, who died in November 1936 and Bantwal Anand Mallyya. Bantwal Anand Mallayya has two sons Dinesh Mallayya and Harish Mallayya. Sanjeev Mallayya and Srinivas Mallayya are the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›