Chennai Court October 1971 Judgments
K. Chelliah Vs. Chairman Industrial Finance Corporation of India and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad122
ORDER1. The petitioner was last serving as Inspector in the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, he having joined the service of the Corporation in 1950 as a Clerk. On June 24, 1965, an order of suspension was served on him and he was so suspended on the alleged ground that he committed acts of criminal misconduct by claiming the cost of the ticket for travel after inspection of Sree Rajendra Mills Limited. Salem in September, 1964, even though the company had paid the same. Thereafter, on December 26, 1966, he was served with a memorandum of charges and as many as eight charges were leveled against him and he was called upon to explain. According to the Respondents, the petitioner violated Regulation 20 (i) of the Staff Regulations of the Industrial Finance Corporation and other rules governing the services, Sri M. N. Khushu was constituted as the Enquiry Officer. He enquired into the charges and, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and after examining several witn...
Tag this Judgment!Vellaiammal Vs. Vellaichamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad338
ORDER1. This petition is filed by Valliammal, wife of one T. Perumal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai passed on appeal dismissing a petition for the issue of a succession certificate. Velliammal applied under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the issue of a succession certificate in her favour to the District Munsif of Paramakudi. During the hearing of the petition, the present respondents got themselves impleaded as parties and opposed the grant of the said certificate. The learned District Munsif, however, granted the succession certificate. The respondents took up the matter on appeal, and the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai allowed the appeal holding that Velliammal is not entitled to claim a succession certificate in respect of the amount left by the deceased Perumal at Penang. Against the present civil revision petition to this Court. 2. Apart from contending that on the merits the learned Subordinat...
Tag this Judgment!R. Govindaraj Vs. N.G. Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad346
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent herein is the landlord as at present; his father (who is now no more) filed the eviction petition against the petitioner herein for the purpose of getting additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The petitioner herein has been a tenant under the father of the respondent herein occupying a portion, viz, a small shop portion measuring 2' x 5' in premises No. 16 Govindappa Naick St., G. T. Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20. The petitioner is carrying on a business in the said portion as electrician. The father of the respondent was carrying on business in stationery and general stores in a portion in the ground floor of the said premises, No. 16 Govindappa Naick St., and required the portion in the occupation of the petitioner herein also, bona fide for his additional accommodation. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition.On appe...
Tag this Judgment!Marutha Vs. Rajagopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1210
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first respondent. herein is the Tahsildar and the second respondent is the Revenue Inspector. The third respondent is the village headman and the fourth respondent is the Karnam, The fifth respondent is the Thalavari and the sixth respondent was the procurins agent during the relevant period. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against them under Sections 147, 447 and 395 I. P.C. alleging that on 22-3-1969. at about 6-30 p. m. they all came to his house. entered inside and forcibly removed some bags of paddy. He further complained that the first respondent caught hold of his thulasimani and pulled it and pushed him down. Similarly, the wife of the petitioner was pushed down by the second respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 threatened him using some words. Respondents 5 and 6. with the assistance of the men they had brought. removed the bags to the street. They refused to give any written order or receipt. This complaint was taken on file by the learned Distr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vadivel Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1641
1. This is an appeal by the accused against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. South Arcot. convicting him under Section 302 I. P.C. two counts of double murder and sentencing him to imprisonment for life on each of the two counts the sentences to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night of 5th March 1970 at Thirukkandeeswaram the accused. Vadivel Padavachi murdered his wife. Anjalai and her paramour Pichai Mohammed by cut-tine their necks with an axe while they were lying together in the southern room of his house.3. The accused who is a woodcutter by profession married Anjalai, who was no other than the daughter of his paternal aunt. Pattammal PW. 8. The marriage took place about ten years ago. For about three years after the marriage the couple lived together happily at Keezhachavadi the native village of the accused. Then they shifted to Mulligiram-battu which is the village of PW. 8 They lived there in amity till a Muslim by name Pichai Mohamm...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Palaniswami Vs. V. Ramamurti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ20
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Fourth Respondent in I.A. No. 981 of 1971 is the petitioner herein. I.A. No. 981 of 1971 was filed on O.P, No. 18 of 1970, on the file of the District Munsif V Court (Election Court), Tirupur, by the first respondent herein. The said I.A. was for recounting of the votes which were produced before the Election Court. The main O.P. No. 18 of ,1970 in which I.A. No. 981 of 1970 was filed, was for setting aside the election of the petitioner herein as President of the Appayanaiekenpatti Panchayat and to declare that the first respondent herein is the duly elected President of the said Panchayat.2. The first respondent and the petitioner contested the election to the Presidentship of the Appayanaiekenpatti Panchayat. The first respondent contested the election under the symbol of 'Road Roller', while the petitioner contested under the symbol of 'Pumpkin'. Ultimately, the Election Authority declared that the first respondent secured 710 votes and the petitioner, 712...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Purushothama Reddiar and ors. Vs. the Court of the Appellate Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad381
ORDER1. These four writ petitions arise out of the same order for granting a stage carriage permit in respect of one bus to ply on the route Pondicherry to Neyveli via. Villianur, Ariyur, Madagadipet, etc. There were 52 applicants before the State Transport Authority and 18 appellants before the State Appellate Tribunal who came before it after the grant was made to one P. C. Purushothama Reddiar, writ petitioner in W.P. No. 1710 of 1970. In these four writ petitions, the grant made by the Appellate Authority in favour of one Vanataya who is the contesting respondent in all the writ petitions is challenged. I shall now deal with the writ petitions one after another.2. The contention of P. C. Purushothama Reddiar in W.P. No. 1710 of 1970 is that Vanataya (hereinafter referred to as the grantee) is not a resident of Pondicherry but ordinarily resides in Cuddalore; that he has not a shed as required under the rules governing such grants; and that the grantee did not produce a solvency cer...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalinga Voikkaran Vs. P.R.S. Sellathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ17
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlord, respondent herein, filed a petition under Section 3(4)(a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, (XXV of 1955) before the Revenue Court, Thanjavur for eviction of the tenant from the petition-mentioned land, alleging that the tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due to him for fasli 1379. On 31st October, the Revenue Court passed a preliminary order directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent of Rs. 214.40 on or before 20th November, 1970; the same order mentioned that in the event of default an order of eviction would follow. The presiding officer of the Revenue Court who passed the said order, did not continue and there was vacancy in the post during the months of November and December, 1970. later, when the post was filled up by a new officer, the case came on for hearing on 2nd March, 1971. On 2nd March, it is stated, the Counsel for the tenant and the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramaswamy Iyer Vs. Sendhil Tiruppani Kattalai Attached to Sri Subra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ15
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. (1) The defendant is the-petitioner. The plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 671.19 due as per the lease deed dated 1st July, 1961, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with subsequent interest and costs. The plaintiff's case is that the suit properties, namely, survey fields 92 and 94 measuring 8 acres 80 cents and 8 acres 41 cents respectively and situate at Veerapandiapattinam, belong to the plaintiff, that the defendant took them, on lease from the plaintiff agreeing to pay an annual rent of Rs. 223.73. and executed a lease deed dated 1st July, 1961, for a period of five years commencing from fasli 1371 ending with fasli, 1375 ,that the defendant enjoyed the suit lands for the said period but failed to pay the rent except the advance which was paid at the time of execution of the lease, that the plaintiff issued a notice dated 9th November,. 1965, demanding the arrears of rent, that the defendant sent a reply dated 20th November, 1965 containing f...
Tag this Judgment!Sigappiachi and ors. Vs. M.A.P.A. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad463
1. The appellants in A. S. No. 201 of 1962 have filed this review petition on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Their contention is that interest has not been awarded under Section 34, C.P. Code. It is also contended that the principal sum adjudged in Rs. 34,773.68 on which alone interest can be awarded under Section 34, C.P. Code.2. It is unfortunate that in the course of the prolonged hearing of the appeal, this point relating to interest was not raised by either of the parties. In the concluding part of our judgment, we directed that the interest that had been allowed by the lower Court upto the date of suit be confirmed and that from the date of suit compound interest on the amount found due at 71/2 per cent will be calculated upto the date of realisation.3. Section 34, Civil P.C. provides:--"(1) Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »