Chennai Court November 1971 Judgments
V. Kadirvelu Vs. the Secretary, the Madras State Khadi and Village Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ64
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 873 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein. He was appointed as the provincial Palm Gur Organiser, on a contract basis, in 1949' against a post temporarily created for a period of one year. His service was initially under the Co-operative Department. In 1956 the scheme of Palm Gur Development was placed in charge of the Director of Industries and the post also was transferred to that Department. In i959, the Madras (State Khadi and Village Industries Board) Act (XVIII of 1959) was passed, and persons who were employed under the Government in connection with the development of such industries were given option to go over to the service of the Board constituted under the Act with effect from 15th September, 1960. The Appellant was one of the persons who> came to serve under the Board with effect from 1st January, 1961. Prior to his coming over to the service of the Board, h...
Tag this Judgment!Taj Prakash Thaikkal, Represented by S.M.A. Syed Hameed, Managing Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ237
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, and he filed a suit for possession of the suits property as well as for mesne profits, both past and future. The plaintiff's case Was that the suit property was leased out to the first defendant for a period of 5 years on an annual rental of Rs. 40 from 7th June, 1960 and that even after the expiry of the lease, the first defendant has not surrendered possession nor has he paid the arrears of rent for the period from 30th June, 1963 to 30th June, 1964. The plaintiff also claimed that he is entitled to damages for use and occupation after the expiry of the lease period on 7th June, 1965. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the second defendant had purchased the property from the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 500 on 5th July, 1966 and that in any event the suit is not maintainable as the suit property is situate in an Inam village governed by the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1963.2. The trial Court considered both the...
Tag this Judgment!Kannammal Vs. Deivasigamani Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad268
1. The plaintiff in each of the suits is the appellant. The plaintiff's husband Manicka Gounder, Deivasigamani the respondent in S.A. No. 68 of 1969 and Velu Gounder were brothers. They partitioned their properties and were in separate enjoyment of their shares. The plaintiff's husband died about ten years prior to suit, leaving the plaintiff to succeed him. The plaintiff filed two suits (1) O.S. 518 of 1963 against Velu Gounden and (2) O.S. 519 of 1963 against Deivasigamani out of which the above second appeals have arisen, claiming Rs. 172-50 in each of the suits. The case of the plaintiff is that on 12-8-1957 partition koor chits were executed by all the sharers and each of them took a copy thereof but they were unstamped and unregistered. About two years ago the plaintiff presented the said partition koor chit for validation; but the revenue authorities summoned the other koor chits also from the other sharers and levied the stamp duty and penalty. The case of the plaintiff is that...
Tag this Judgment!R.A. Sathar and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee, Representing the Estat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ393
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The two applicants, who are third parties to the insolvency proceedings, have taken out this Judge's Summons under Section 86 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to set aside the sale of the insolvent's 1/8th share in the registered trade mark 'Maharaja Beedies' bearing Nos. 105149 and 105150 in favour of the 7th respondent at an auction held on 30th March, 1971, by the Official Assignee, Madras. One T.M. Hajee Abdul Rahim Sahib was the sole proprietor of the said trade marks. By a deed of assignment dated 7th April, 1960, he assigned the rights in the trade mark in favour of his sons and grandsons, namely: (1) Sathar, (2) Quiyum, (3) Shokoor, (4) Khaleel (Insolvent), (5) Jaleel, (6) Irshed, (7) Sajjad and (8) Dilshed. Nos. 1 and 2 shown above are the applicants in this application. In about October, 1960, a firm by name Messrs. T.M. Hajee Abdul Rahim Sahib & Sons, consisting of the said Hajee Abdul Rahim and his sons and grandsons, was started and the said fi...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rafeeq Ahmed and Co. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad454
The plaintiff in O.S. No. 450 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, who succeeded before the trial Judge but lost before the first appellate Judge, is the appellant herein. The facts are not really in controversy. Under invoices Nos. 12 and 13 dated 19th November, 1962, 13 and 20 bags respectively of wet salted goat skins were despatched to the appellant from Raipur to Madras Salt Cotarus by the Orissa Hides Trading Co. Raipur, Madhya Pradesh. The said goods were booked from Raipur on 19th November, 1962 and Exs. B.1 and B.2 are the relevant railway receipts. Exs. B.14 and B.15 contain the relevant forwarding notes. The goods actually reached Madras on 4th January 1963. The appellant herein demanded and obtained open delivery on 11-1-1963. Exs. A.3 & A.4 dated 11-1-1963 are copies of open delivery certificates issued by the Southern Railway officers for the two consignment in question and the contents of those certificates are almost identical and they are as follows:'Th...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Thiagarajan and ors. Vs. B.N. Sundaravelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad216
ORDER1. The plaintiffs and the third defendant in O. S. No. 27 of 1957 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Salem are the petitioners,. The plaintiff filed the above suit for partition by metes and bounds into six equal shares of items 1 to 17 in Schedule III or alternatively to division by metes and bounds of all the items 1 to 59 in Schedule II in the plaint plus items 10, 11, and 12 of Schedule III as the case may be into six equal shares and for allotment of one such share to each of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. The above unfortunate litigation had a chequered career and this litigation has come upto this Court more than four times. The above revision arises out of I. A. 431 of 1965 dated 31-3-1965 in O. S. 27 of 1957 for appointment of a Commissioner for dividing items 1 to 7 of Schedule 2 in the plaint into six equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad quality and allotment of one such share to the petitioner therein with the necessary appurtenant ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Balakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR263(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee in the books of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Nannilam. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, while quantifying the income-tax, did not exempt an extent of 29.37 acres of land taken over by the Government under provisions of the Madras Land Reforms Act of 1961, when he passed an order of composition under Section 65 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act of 1955. It is no doubt true that when the petitioner filed an application for composition on June 16, 1966, he included in his return the total extent of his land including the above extent of 29.37 acres of land, which was admittedly in excess of the ceiling limit of the holding which the petitioner could possess or own. But as the lands were included in the returns made by the petitioner, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer passed an order of composition as above on July 28, 1966. Thus he included in the said order the extent of, 29.37 acres of land also for computing the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Doraiswami and ors. Vs. Kanniappa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad460
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit immoveable properties and for damages. The father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property on 29th July 1963. On the same day under Ex. A-1 the defendant agreed to reconvey the property to the vendor if a sum of Rs. 1,600 and half of the expenses of the sale deed was paid to him within five years. On 5th May 1965 the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 died. On 7th June 1966 plaintiffs 1 to 3, the sons and the fourth plaintiff the widow sent a notice to the defendant demanding execution of the reconveyance and stating that they are ready and willing to pay the amount as per Ex, A-1 the agreement of reconveyance. On 14 the June 1966, the defendant sent a reply refusing to execute the reconveyance and stating that he was not bound to execute the reconveyance under the terms of Ex. A-1. The trial Court decreed the suit a...
Tag this Judgment!The Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC412(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner still feels that he has not exhausted himself, though he has availed himself of the normal remedies such as appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, further reference to the High Court and also seeking after seeking for rectification of the original order by applying to the assessing authority and also by furthering the process by approaching the Deputy Commissioner to correct the order of the assessing authority who refused to rectify. It appears that whilst he was availing himself of such further remedies as above, he filed an application dated 26th July, 1967, to the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his powers suo motu under Section 32 to revise the orders of assessment (which was the subject-matter of the appeals as above as also applications for rectification) on the ground that he had a good case for such exercise of jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner and in the ultimate analysis would ...
Tag this Judgment!Parry and Company Limited Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC168(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners were finally assessed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for various years including the assessment year 1966-67 with which we are concerned in this writ petition. The petitioners admit that they have collected sales tax from their customers and remitted the same to the revenue. It is common ground, that the petitioners did not claim any exemption in the matter of remission of such sales tax collected by them and paid over to the revenue, nor did the petitioners have any grievance over the alleged impropriety of the final order of assessment. But, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla and Co. (Private] Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes : [1966]3SCR352 which was rendered on 18th January, 1966, the petitioners have come up to this court, in January, 1969, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction to quash the order dated 15th Marc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »