Chennai Court February 1971 Judgments
Velammal and ors. Vs. Chokkiah Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad469; (1971)2MLJ132
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. The suit is by the widow of Velusami Gounder for herself and as next friend of her daughters who are the second and third plaintiffs for past and future maintenance against her husband who was the first defendant. Subsequent to suit the first defendant died leaving behind him the petitioners and two sons and his mother as heirs. The sons and mother are impleaded as defendants 7 to 9. Consequent on the death of the first defendant, the plaintiffs who have a half share in the suit properties filed I. A. 1305 of 1969 for amendment of the plaint in the altered circumstances seeking to claim partition and separate possession of their half share. The application was opposed by the third defendant on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, will change the character of the suit as also the cause of action. The trail court upheld the objection and dismissed the application. The present civil revision petition is filed against the said order.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Natarajan Vs. D. Samson, Joint Commercial Tax Officer (Central Inte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ500; [1971]28STC319(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods carrying on business under the name of Electrical Engineering Equipment Co., Errabalu Chetty Street, Madras-1. He is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. On the 18th March, 1967, the business premises of the petitioner was raided and in the course of such a raid, which occupied considerable time of the searching officers, a number of account books and documents were seized. The petitioner has given a list of such documents which according to the department were handed over by the assessee and which according to the petitioner were seized from the premises. As the law then was, the seizure itself was illegal as Section 41 was held to be violative of certain articles of the Constitution of India. But the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. R.S. Jhaver [1967] 20 S.T.C. 453, upheld the validity of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and in the course of their observ...
Tag this Judgment!Umaraparvathy Vs. Bhagvathy Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad151
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She was the first wife of one Thanamalayan Pillai. The first defendant is the second wife of the said Thanamalayan Pillai. The first defendant is the second wife of the said Thanamalayan Pillai. Defendants 2 to 7 are the children of Thanumalayan Pillai through the second wife. The plaintiff has no child. She has filed this suit for partition of the suit properties, claiming a half share in them, and for possession. She claims that as per the custom prevailing in Krishnavaka Community to which the parties to the suit belong, she is entitled to claim one half of the suit properties. The defendants, though did not dispute the custom as such, claimed that that custom did not enable a female member to claim the status of an heir along with the sons and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The trial court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff to a half share in the suit properties, but held that she would be entitled to a 1/56th share...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shankerlal Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer Sowcarpet Ii Division a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC510(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner was carrying on business without registering himself as a dealer with the Commercial Taxes Department. Apparently, he was carrying on business during the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65. On 31st July, 1964, his premises was raided by the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department and certain incriminating materials, to wit, three slips were discovered in the course of such search. On 10th August, 1964, a provisional assessment notice was sent to the petitioner wherein a proposal was made to assess him in the best judgment method since the slips which were discovered in the course of the search were the sole material on which the department could act and that it was felt that there was a possible escapement of the assessable turnover and hence the tax. The petitioner replied on 25th August, 1964, stating that his account books were maintained in the regular course of business and reflected all his dealings and that he had nothing to do w...
Tag this Judgment!Periasami Naicker Vs. Sella Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad466
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit house and for recovery of possession. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property fell to his share, that the defendant took it on lease orally from the plaintiff agreeing to pay rent of Re. 1 per mensem, that the defendant is residing in the suit house from 15th Chitrai 1959 corresponding to 29-4-1959 under that agreement, that the defendant has paid rent till 29-4-1961 and failed to pay the balance. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant calling upon him to vacate to which the defendant calling upon him to vacate to which the defendant sent a reply stating that he purchased the suit house from the plaintiff's father on 3-4-1956 and that there is no tenancy agreement between him and the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit for declaration of title as also for possession.The defence to the suit is that he did not take the property on lease from the plaintiff o...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Venkatarama Reddiar Vs. Vardaraja Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad471; (1971)IIMLJ128
ORDER1. The first defendant is the petitioner. The suit is for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of possession under a sale deed dated 9-7-1965 executed by Sivaprakasa and an exchange deed Ex. A. 2. The first defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the western half of the suit property, originally under a usufructury mortgage dated 23-6-1962 and later an agreement of sale by Sivaprakasa in his favour dated 22-8-1964. The first defendant contended that the agreement of sale was reduced to writing on stamp papers supplied by the vendor Sivaprakasa, that one Ratnasabapathi Pillai wrote the said agreement,. that one Ramalingam had attested it, that he purchased stamp papers in his name for completing the sale transaction, that he gave them to the vendor Sivaprakasa to get the sale deed written up on the stamp papers, that Sivaprakasa, instead of completing the sale transaction, sold the suit property to the plaintiff, a...
Tag this Judgment!The Erode Co-operativfe Motor Transport Society (for Harijans) Ltd. Er ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad93
1. In this batch of petitions under Art 226 of the Constitution for certiorari the main and common question argued before us is as to the validity of Rule 155-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1940. The rule was introduced by G.O. Ms. No. 1427. Home dated May 13, 1968. The object of the rule as stated in the preamble is to provide certain guiding principles for the grant of stage carriage permits. The rule has six clauses of which the first classified the routes as short, medium and long. The second clause provides for screening of applicants for stae carriage permits on certain grounds of disqualification. After eliminating the applicants as unsuitable. the following clause specifies how the merits of the rival applicants are to be assessed on the basis of marks to be awarded as for residence, branch office, experience on the route, business or technical experience in the field of motor vehicles operation, repair and maintenance facilities and viable unit. In allotting marks, there...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Karuppayee Vs. Mothi Mondi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1971
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ495
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by Kumari Karuppayee, directed against the order of dismissal of the petition praying for her maintenance. The learned Additional First-Class Magistrate I, Madurai, held on the strength of the order of his predecessor dated 30th September, 1966, that the petitioner had completed her eighteenth year, as she was born in about a year after the marriage of Mothi Mondi Ambalam, the respondent herein, with the mother of the petitioner on 31st March, 1947 and that hence she was not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Magistrate further stated that maintenance for the petitioner has been claimed before in the Madurai Court and that it has been disallowed. The order dated 2oth May, 1969 of the Court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Madurai, was really justified on the then prevailing state of law as decided in the ruling reported in Amirthammal v. Marimuthu : AIR1967Mad77 . But the Supreme Court has overruled the said dec...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Velan Vs. Narayanan and Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad118
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioner canvasses the correctness of the of the lower court directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as a condition precedent for the grant of leave to defend the suit O. S. No. 584 of 1966. It is contended by the petitioner that the lower court has found that there is a triable issue in the face of the contentions raised by the petitioner its direction to deposit the sum of Rs. 2,000/- is erroneous in law. A perusal of the order of the lower court shows that it specifically finds that having regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his affidavit, a triable issue certainly arises in this case, and that it was just and necessary to grant leave to the petitioner to defend the suit. The trial court also says that the plea raised by the defendant is not a mere ruse to protract the proceedings. After finding that there arises a triable issue and that the plea raised by the petitioner is not a mere ruse but a bona fide one the trial court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ottakara Samban Vs. Palmuthiah Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ120
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No, 207 of 1961 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur, who lost before the trial Court as well as before the first appellate Court is the appellant before this Court. He instituted the suit for a declaration that he was the Nirganti of Azhuthakanniratrinan tank in inam Chettikulam village and hence entitled to be in possession of the suit property and for the consequential relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit property. The facts are not in controversy. In 1938 under Exhibit A-1 dated 26th January, 1938 the appellant herein was appointed as the Nirganti of the tank in question by the inamdars of the village. Subsequently defendants 1 to 3, who were impleaded as respondents 1 to 3 herein, approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and. the District Collector for ousting the appellant from the office and for appointing ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »