Chennai Court November 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.
Kandaswami and ors. Vs. Venkatachala Kandar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ401
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendants 2 to 4 in O.S. No. 639 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal, who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The suit was instituted by the respondents 1 to 3 herein for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immovable property to them and defendants 2 and 3 entered into by the 4th respondent herein on 3rd September, 1964. Pending the suit, the appellants herein purchased the property from the 4th respondent herein. The fourth respondent in the written statement filed by him denied the existence of any such agreement between him and the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3. Similarly, defendants 2 and 3 also filed a common written statement denying the existence of the agreement. The fourth defendant who had also filed a written statement also denied the existence of the agreement. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit found that such an agreement ...
Farm Tea Estates Syndicate Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR444(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner owns two estates in Nilgiris District, namely, the Farm Tea Estate and Corsley Estate. For the assessment year 1964-65, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was of the view that the notional income which the petitioner should be deemed to have earned by reason of the occupation of two bungalows in the estate by the partners was taxable income and included the same in the assessable income of the petitioner for that year. Similar assessments were made for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. For the year under consideration, namely, 1964-65, the petitioner, who was confronted with a demand for tax on the above income, as if it was agricultural income, did not agitate the matter or that portion of the order in appeal which he filed as against the original order of assessment for the year, passed by the assessing authority on July 15, 1966. It appears, however, that for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68, the petitioner not only filed appea...
W.H. Deeth and Company and anr. Vs. the Assistant Commercial Tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC233(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. Both these writ petitions raise a common question. I intend referring to the facts in W.P. No. 455 of 1970 first and thereafter refer to the salient features in the other writ petition (W.P. No. 3581 of 1968) for purposes of completion.2. The petitioners (Athithan Stores) carry on business in Madras and are registered dealers both under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Madras General Sales Tax Act. A consignment of 91 bags of buller seeds was sent by their principals, Messrs. Mruthyunjaya Traders, Bangalore, through a lorry, MDS 4495, belonging to Messrs. Busy Transports, Madras. The goods were despatched by the principals under their pro forma dated 23rd January, 1970, for 'commission sales' by the petitioners. There were, therefore, no sale documents as popularly understood which accompanied the transport. But it is not in dispute that the transport was accompanied by the pro forma invoice of the principals, which disclosed that the consignment was sent to...
M. Narayanan Vs. G. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ212
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. The first respondent decree-holder in the Court below is the petitioner herein. The above revision petition arises in execution proceedings. In O.S. No. 495 of i966, the petitioner herein obtained a decree and in execution attached the joint family property belonging to the judgment-debtors. After attachment was effected, the sons, one of them being a minor have filed the present application claiming that they are entitled to their two-third share of the property that the decree is not binding on them and that the one-third share of the father alone could be brought to sale in execution and that the decree is a personal decree against the father. The suit was for recovery of an amount from the first defendant-company and the second defendant as director of the first defendant-company. That suit was decreed, and the ancestral properties of the second defendant were brought to sale and the properties were attached and it is at that stage the present application b...
The Jamia Darus Salem Arabic College Trust by Its Honorary Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ141
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This petition' has been filed under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (XVIII of i960), by a landlord (a trust) who has been unsuccessful in its application for eviction of the first respondent. The premises bearing Door No. 3, Thambu Chetty Street, George Town, Madras-1, belong to the petitioner trust, and two rooms, room Nos. 4-A and 6 in the first floor of the said premises were let out about 25 years ago to the first respondent Rajanna, a Chartered Accountant. The allegation in the petition for eviction dated 2nd November, 1965 was that the first respondent had sub-let a portion bearing Door No. 4-A (small room) to the second respondent Panduranga Rao on a rent of Rs. 50 per month and thus rendered himself liable to eviction under Section 10(2)(ii) of the Act. The first respondent denied the sub-letting and stated that the second respondent was his friend whom he had permitted to occupy a portion of room No. 6 free of rent...
Arumugam Pillai Vs. Maruthakutti Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad242
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 628 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, who lost before the Courts below is the appellant herein. Admittedly, the suit property belonged to the appellant. On 13-3-1961 the appellant executed a document styled as 'Kattuvali Bogyam' for Rs. 4,000 and obtained this amount of Rs. 4,000 from the respondent and put the respondent in possession of the property. On the expiry of the period of five years stipulated in the document the appellant instituted the present suit for recovery of possession. The case of the respondent was that Ex. B-1 was a lease deed and therefore, under the provision of Madras Act 25 of 1955 he was entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and the appellant herein was not entitled to recover possession thereof from the respondent. The Courts below accepted this contention of the respondent and dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant. Hence the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit....
Logambal Ammal and anr. Vs. the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ612
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants claim to be the owners and hereditary trustees of Sri Kailasanathar Samadhiin Padi village. But their claim was negatived by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmer ts Board and their appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Gharitable Endowments, as evidenced by the order Exhibit A-1. They filed O.S. No. 82 of 1961, on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to set aside the order of the Commissioner, but the suit was dismissed with costs and hence they have preferred this appeal.2. Sri O.V. Baluswamy appearing for the appellants urged that the suit institution is a samadhi and that in the alternative it is a private temple over which the Endowments Board cannot exercise any jurisdiction under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The learned Stibordinate Judge, who tried the suit, has discussed the evidence in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his judgment and found that the suit insti-t...
S. Gopalakrishna Iyer Vs. V.S. Subbaraya Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad269
1. The only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the first defendant-appellant is that the suit out of which the second appeal arises is barred by res judicata as well as by limitation. The circumstances under which the above plea based on res judicata and limitation has been raised are these: Originally the suit property belonged to the joint family of one Kuppa Iyer and Venkatasubramania Iyer. Kuppa Iyer had two daughters, Parvathi and Subbulakshmi and a son Sambasiva Iyer. Sambasiva Iyer died issueless in March 1950 and his wife had predeceased him. The plaintiff is the son of Subbulakshmi and the seventh defendant is the adopted son of Parvathi. Defendants 1 and 2 and one Mahadevan are the grandsons of Venkatasubramania Iyer and defendants 3 to 6 and 8 are the children of he deceased Mahadeven. Out of the two daughters of Kuppa Iyer, Parvathi and Subbulakshmi, Subbulakshmi predeceased Parvathi. Therefore, Parvathi filed a suit O. S. No. 428 of 1950 on the file of the Dis...
Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Facit Asia and Rayala Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ389Mad
ORDERPalaniswamy, J.1. On a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the State Government, the Labour Court, Madras, held that the non-employment of Cherian Mathew, the second respondent, whose case has been espoused by the Facit Asia and Rayala Corporation Employees' Union, the first respondent, was not justified. This petition by the management is directed against that award. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of Halda typewriters. The second respondent has acquired qualification in drawing. On 13th March, 1963, an agreement was. entered into between the petitioner-company and the second respondent whereby the second respondent agreed to serve the company for a period of five years from 1-4-1963 on certain terms which would be presently adverted to in detail. The second respondent was designated as drawing office chief. The term of five years expired by 1-4-1968. By a communication, dated 9th March, 1968, the petitio...
V. Shoroop Sundar and anr. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad245
ORDER1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal who refused to entertain an appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Regional Transport Authority who in turn acted under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed the opening of a new route with one vehicle on it. The petitioners' case is that even before the amending Act No. 16 of 1971 of the Tamil Nadu Legislature their right of appeal to the State Transport Appellate Authority against orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47(3) read with Sec. 64 (1)(i) is preserved by Rule 147(2)(ii). The argument proceeds that notwithstanding the amending Act the right to present an appeal against an order passed under Section 47(3) by the appropriate authority not having been expressly taken away as was attempted to be done by Section 9 of the amending Act by which the right of revision against such orders have been taken away the inf...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »