Chennai Court September 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.R. Sankar Vs. M.A. Buvanambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad368; (1971)1MLJ230
1. The second appeals and civil revisions petitions have been placed before us because they raise a common question as to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai, to perform the functions of a Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960. The courts below have held that he has jurisdiction. The petitions arise from eviction orders passed by the Additional District Munsif, to whom, apparently, under the administrative directions of this court with reference to the file of the Principal District Munsif, the petitions for eviction had been transferred. The second appeals arise out of suits instituted by tenants to declare the invalidity of the eviction had been transferred. The second appeals arise out of suits instituted by tenants to declare the invalidity of the eviction orders which had become final under the provisions of the Act, on the ground of total want of jurisdiction in the Additional District Munsif.2. The view of the courts bel...
The T.V.R. Subbichetty's Family Charities represented by Its Trustees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ239
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the respondent, the Executive Officer, Sriperumbudur Town Panchayat, dated 20th June, 1969.2. The petitioner is the owner of door No. 58, Gandhi Road, Sriperumbudur. It was originally assessed to house tax at Rs. 36.09 for half year. The respondent served a special notice of house tax on the petitioner on 22nd August, 1968, fixing the house tax at Rs. 360 and library cess at Rs. 10-80, making in all Rs. 370-80. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision to the Executive Officer within the time allowed. As he did not receive any reply he sent a reminder to the respondent on 22nd February, 1969, enclosing a copy of the revision petition already filed. The respondent returned the revision petition stating that the said petition was filed out of time. Thereupon, the petitioner by a letter dated 9th March, 1969, pointed out to the respondent that the revision had already been fi...
Subramania Reddiar Vs. Kollapuri Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1970
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ74
S. Ganesan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in C.M.A. No. 15 of 1965 on his file affirming the order of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram in E.A. No. 427 of 1964 filed by respondents herein (defendants 2 to 5 in the suit), raising the attachment of 3/12th share in the properties.2. On a promissory note executed by the first defendant and his sons (respondents 1 and 2 herein) in his favour, the appellant instituted a suit O.S. No. 104 of 1963 against all the executants. The appellant alleged in his plaint that, on 5th January, 1961, the first defendant paid a sum of Rs. 100 and acknowledged the same by an endorsement on the promissory note and that the endorsement was binding on respondents 1 and 2. The first defendant died in the course of the trial and the third defendant Manickammal, the widow of the first defendant and Arumugha Reddiar (the fourth respondent herein) another son of the first defendant were added as ...
Assistant Director of Enforcement Vs. O.S. Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ122
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant herein is an exporter and importer at Madras doing business under the name and style of 'Crescent Traders.' During January, 1969, he exported 35 kgs. of birds' nests to M/s. International Trading Company at Singapore. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) states that for these exports, the party should file a declaration in Form G.R. 1 to the prescribed authority stating that the amount representing the full export value of the goods have either been paid or will be paid within the prescribed period in the prescribed manner. Such a declaration was filed by the appellant as per Exhibit P-5, and in it he stated that the value of the goods was Rs. 700 and that he was exporting the same as a seller. Exhibit P-8, the invoice for this consignment in favour of the International Trading Company at Singapore, also gave the same value. The buyer company opened a letter of credit as per Exhibit...
Rangaswami Gounder Vs. Ramaswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad328
ORDER1. This revision arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner as an assignee of a promissory note dated 26-9-1966 executed by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3000 in favour of the petitioner's assignor. The said suit was resisted by the respondent. he also filed an application under O. 8-A, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure code for impleading the husband of the assignor as a party defendant to the suit contending that the consideration for the promissory note was paid by the assignor's husband, that he had received the entire amount due under the promissory note and had passed a receipt to him in full discharge of it, and that as such he is entitle to be indemnified for the payments made to him in the event of the petitioner succeeding in getting a decree against him. This application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the assignor's husband cannot be made a party to this suit, that the remedy of the respondent, if any, was to file an independent action against him for...
S.V. Raman Vs. the Madras State Warehousing Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad431; (1971)1MLJ151
ORDER1. While the petitioner, Raman, was working as Warehouse Superintendent at Karur under the Madras State Warehousing Corporation, the respondent herein, he was served with a charge memo dated 9-5-1968 pointing out certain lapses. Before final orders could be passed on the matter, he was served with a memo of additional charges for alleged lapses of insubordination, indiscipline and dishonesty. On 16-9-1968, he was placed under suspension and was relieved of his duties with effect from 19-9-1968 and thereafter 12 consolidated charges were framed against him. He was asked to show cause before 20-11-1968 as to why he should not be removed from service for those charges. On 4-11-1968, he submitted a letter to the Managing Director stating that he had already submitted his explanation on 22-5-1968 in respect of the charge memo dated 9-5-1968, that he was not responsible for the charges framed against him and that he might be allowed to explain his grievances in an open enquirey. He foll...
Raja Goundar and ors. Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ95
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. Proceedings under Section 107, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are pending against the petitioners in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, in M.C. No. 249 of 1970 on his file. The petitioners seek to quash these-proceedings.2. The dispute relates to Survey No. 185, 4 acres and 20 cents in extent situate in Pallipalayam, a village in Salem District. This property was purchased by the 2nd petitioner in Court auction in R.E.P. No. 631 of 1959in O.S. No. 317 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif, Sankari. Possession was delivered to him on 28th May, 1965, by the Amin. On 27th January, 1969, by a registered agreement for sale, the 2nd petitioner agreed to sell this property to the other petitioners and delivered possession to them. There was obstruction to the enjoyment by one Kuppanna Goundan and others. The petitioners moved the Second Class Executive Magistrate, Thiruchengode and obtained a prohibitory order under Section 144, Criminal...
In Re: Munusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad259; 1971CriLJ957; (1971)2MLJ30
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal by one Munuswamy against his conviction and sentence for offences under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Nagammal, by throttling her after relieving her of a cloth-pouch containing Rs. 6.2. In brief, the skeletal outline of the prosecution case is spoken to by P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. P.W. 1 is the son of Nagammal (deceased). P.W. 2 is Nagammal (deceased). P.Ws. 3 and 4 were working in the neighbouring fields near the scene of occurrence. P.W. 5 is the husband of P.W. 2 and the son-in-law of Nagammal (deceased).3. P.Ws. 1. 2. 5. and Nagammal the deceased, were living together in the field shed of P.W. 5 at Chikkampatti. the appellant is the farm servant of one Natesan, son of P.W. 5. by his first wife, who is living away, separate from his father. On 18th may, 1969, P.W. 5 left Chikkampatti for Giddampatti Thanda for the purpose of participating in a panchayat. Prior to his d...
In Re: Muthian Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ730; (1971)IIMLJ114
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Muthian Nadar, the appellant herein, seeks to appeal against his conviction for an offence Under Section 302, IPC. for committing the murder of his wife Leela Pushpam by trampling on her chest and neck and the sentence of imprisonment for life.2. Leela Pushpam (deceased) was the wife of the accused. She bore two children to the accused. She was living in the house of the accused which was adjoining P.W. l's house at Thiruthangal. According to the evidence of P.W. .1 the accused-appellant was not living with his wife, but he was living elsewhere.3. The accused and his wife Leela Pushpam had fallen out. She was accusing her husband of keeping some concubines. She was also in the habit of asking women not to come for cooly work under the accused. She also accused them of being the concubines of her husband. The prosecution case is that Leela Pushpam was also in illicit intimacy with P.W. 5. However, with regard to that alleged intimacy between P.W. 5 and Leela Pushpam...
P. Govindaswami Padayachi Vs. Sri Suryanarayanaswami Devasthanam by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ34
1. Petitioner Govindaswami Padayachi seeks to revise the order of the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur confirming that of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Thanjavur directing the petitioner to surrender possession of the land belonging to the respondent-trust. The finding of the Authorised Officer and the District Revenue Officer that the petitioner owns 9.24 ordinary acres equivalent to 6.60 standard acres of land and hence he is not entitled to retain possession of Sri Suryanarayanaswami Devasthanam lands leased to him is rot disputed. In fact, the petitioner claims to have surrendered 28.29 acres of land belonging to the trust and he claims rights in respect of only 4.78 acres of land on the ground that it is exempt from the operation of the Act. The District Revenue Officer has pointed out in his order that the petitioner has not put forward any plea in his counter before the Authorised Officer that 4.78 acres of land or any other extent is exempt from the operation the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »