Chennai Court October 1971 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.
A.V. Kannappa Mudaliar Vs. V.C. Chellakutti Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad287
1. E. P. No. 57 of 1968 in O. S. No. 296 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Vellore, out of which the appeal arises was filed by the appellant herein for realising a sum of Rs. 2133-70 the amount due to him from the respondent under the decree passed in the above suit on 24-6-1964 and subsequent costs of execution by sale of the properties described in the schedule to the petition attached on 21-10-1966 in E. P. No. 126 of 1966.2. The material facts are shortly these: The appellant a wholesale dealer in vegetables in Vellore filed the suit in question against the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 1574 made up of (1) Rs. 1338-64 the amount due from the respondent a retail dealer for the purchase of vegetables and (2) Rs. 235-36 due as interest at 12 per cent per annum from 26-10-1962 till the date of suit and obtained an ex parte decree on 24-6-1964. The decree was subsequently transferred to the Sub-Court, Vellore, for execution and the appellant filed E. P. No. 78...
A.A. Abdul Rasheed Vs. L.M. Basheer Ahmed Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad181
1. The petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 276 of 1971 in O. S. No. 65 of 1971, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C. P. C., praying to pass an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from entering upon the suit properties and disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till the disposal of the suit. The trial court dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present appeal.2. The petitioner's suit is for specific performance of a contract to execute a sale deed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner and for a permanent injunction. The suit properties consist of two items, of which the first items measures 99 cents and the second items measures 29 cents. The first respondent is the owner of these properties, and the appellant had taken a least thereof for the purpose of running a cinema theatre. Ex. A-1 dated 5-3-1966 is the lease deed in favour of t...
P. Chockalinga Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ196
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the Order of our learned brother Kailasam, J., dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus. At the instance of the Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, Madras, proceedings were initiated for the acquisition of an extent of 2-43 ares comprised in Section Nos. 485, 436 and 957/2, in Pasumathur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk for the construction of Headworks and forming an approach road to the Head-works of Gudiyatham Water Supply Scheme - III Stage. The appellant is the owner of a major portion of the land comprised in Section No. 957/2 Which was notified for acquisition. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 12th August, 1964. Notices for an enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were duly issued as provided under the Act. The appellant and the other owners were also given individual notices as required by the...
R.P. David and Company and anr. Vs. the Secretary, Regional Transport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ164
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. W.P. No. 3008 of 1971: The petitioner is a bus operator running stage carriages between Dharmapuri and Salem and in other routes. The petitioner was collecting fares at the rate of 41/2 paise per kilometer. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, by a notice dated 9th August, 1971, directed the petitioner to submit a revised fare table, applying the rate in accordance with 'G.O. No. 1674, Home, dated 22nd June, 1971. The petitioner submitted a fare list. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, fixed a fare for the route to be collected and directed the petitioner to collect such fare on the pain of disciplinary action being taken, if it is violated. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has only an option either to accept the, fares as disclosed in the list filed by the petitioner or to reject the same and he ha* no other power under the provisions of the Act to deal with the situation. Reliance is p...
S. Chenchulakshmi Ammal Vs. A. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad348
1.This second appeal arises out of a petition filed to execute a decree of the Madras City Civil Court. The decree-holder is the appellant. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur. The Plaintiff was the wife of the first defendant and she had obtained a decree for maintenance prior to the suit and for future maintenance at the rate of Rupees 200/- per month against her husband. The second defendant in the suit was her mother-in-law and she was directed, along with her son, the first defendant, to return the jewels of the Plaintiff. The execution petition sought only recovery of the past maintenance and arrears of maintenance subsequent to the suit, and the cost of the suit, in all amounting to a little over Rs. 12,500/-. Execution was sought by attachment and sale of the interest of the two defendants in the suit properties. Though three items were initially mentioned, execution was sought only of the first item, which is a house in Ar...
M. Abdul Khalick and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer (i-c) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR72(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. One M. Sadulla Basha along with five others constituted a partnership and were doing business under the name and style of Messrs. Abdul Khalick Sahib & Company. M. Sadulla Basha died on July 22, 1952, leaving behind him, surviving his wife, Hava Bi, and two minor daughters, Habibunnissa and Sanober. On the date when Sadulla Basha died, a sum of Rs. 29,328-11-2 stood to his credit as per the firm's books. But later, certain adjustments were made and such adjustments resulted in the reduction of the credit as above to a sum of Rs. 20,239.78 as on July 31, 1952. The normal presumption, therefore, is that only a sum of Rs. 20,239.78 should be deemed to be the credit in the name of late Sadulla Basha on the date of his death.2. The surviving partners of the firm entered into an arrangement with the heirs of Sadulla Basha and took them in as partners in the firm, the minors obviously being made partners therein to be entitled to the benefits thereof and thus the firm co...
Damodara Naidu and ors. Vs. Thirupurasundari Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad386
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to and possession of Item 1, for declaration of the plaintiffs' right of way over Item 2 and for a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the obstruction on Item 2 preventing plaintiffs' access to the highway. The plaintiffs' case is that their father Chokkalinga Chetti became entitled to the suit first item under an usufructuary mortgage deed dated 21-6-1935, that he died in 1940 when the plaintiffs were minors, that one Sri P. Raghavan, advocate, was appointed by the District Court as the guardian for them, that the said guardian leased out the suit first item to Venkatarama Naidu, the elder brother of the defendants, under a lease deed dated 1-8-1947, that the lessee was in possession of Item 1 till his death and thereafter his widow continued to be in possession as a tenant, that the plaintiffs after attaining majority filed O.S. 14 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tri...
H.G. Jamal Mohideen Sahib Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1971
Reported in: [1973]88ITR239(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the 5th Income-tax Officer, City Circle II, Madras. For the assessment year 1960-61 he sustained a business loss of Rs. 47,059 but gained capital gains during the year. Though the Income-tax Officer determined such capital gains at one figure, on appeal, the capital gains had been reduced to a sum of Rs. 75,000. On the basis of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the respondent recomputed the income for the assessment year 1960-61 as follows :Rs.Property :1,118Share income (Loss)47,059(-)Other sources :1,312Net loss44,629Capital gains :75,000Total capital gains30,371Rs.Income-tax on Rs. 30,371 @ 425361,291.86Surcharge64.59Special surcharge193.77Total capital gains tax payable1,550.222. The petitioner is aggrieved against the computation made by the Income-tax Officer, as according to him, it does not satisfy the prescription in Section 17(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, which provision is applicable to th...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Company, Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Mudalia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ63
ORDERRaghavan, J.1 The revision petition its filed agairst the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, substituting one Rudrappan as the first respondent (owner of the lorry) in the place of R. Ganesan in the claim petition. The facts are that the first respondent, viz., R. Ganesan was originally impleaded as the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. A.P.G. 344, which was involved in the accident. The petitioner was evidently not aware of the correct name of the owner of the lorry and after coming to know of the correct name of the owner he sought to substitute Rudrappan as owner in the place of R. Ganesan. It is for this purpose that I.A. No. 17 of 1969 in O.P. No. 1 of 1969 was filed. The third respondent who is the Insurance Company contested the application and the contention was raised by them that substitution should not be ordered, but that the petitioner should be directed to file a fresh petition. The learned Judge has ordered the application substituting the corre...
Janaki Ammal Vs. Moolaichamy Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad388
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration of little to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendant. Her case was that the suit property originally formed part of a Devadasi Maniba and that she purchased it after it had been enfranchised under Exs. A-3 and A-7 in the year 1960 by virtue of a sale deed. Ex. A-1 dated 17-4-1961 from the last service-holder Thangammal. The complaint of the plaintiff is that the defendant is asserting title to the suit property and is resisting the claim of the title of the plaintiff. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit land was originally waste that it was reclaimed by the predecessors-in-interest and that they had been in possession right through. It is his definite case that neither the plaintiff nor her vendor was in possession of the suit property at any time. He claimed that the suit property came to be allotted to him in a partition in his family. He also claimed tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »