Chennai Court February 1971 Judgments
The Government of Madras Vs. A.S. Navaneethakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad472; (1971)2MLJ134
ORDER1. In proceedings initiated by the authorised officer, for fixing the ceiling area of the respondent under the provisions of Madras Act 58 of 1961, the respondent contended, inter alia, that certain lands have been dedicated to two trusts called 'Velayutham Pillai Oorani Pilliarkoil Trust' in the village of Seethanendal, and another for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi in the month of Vaikasi in Naganathaswami temple of Nainarkoil, and that they should be excluded from his holding. The Authorised Officer upheld the contention of the respondent as regards the lands dedicated to the Oorani Pilliarkoil trust in Seethanendal, but negatived the respondent's objection as regards the lands said to have been dedicated for the performance of the 8th day Mandagapadi in Naganathaswami temple of Nainarkoil village. 2. The matter was taken in appeal to the Land Tribunal, inter alia against the rejection of the claim for exclusion of the lands said to have been given to the 8th day Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataraman Vs. L.A. Thangappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad119
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 55, 56 and 57 of 1961 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Erode. O. S. No. 55 of 1961, against which A. S. No. 11 of 1964 has been filed, was a suit to set aside the Order of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras dated 18-3-1971 confirming the dismissal, by the Deputy Commissioner of the Plaintiff's application under Section 57(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. The Plaintiff's case was that the Plaintiff's maternal grand-father one Krishna Iyer and his great grand-father one Krishna Iyer and his great grand-father one Narayana Iyer had been the hereditary poojaries and trustees of an ancient temple by name Kaliyaghavaradaraja Perumal Temple at Thalayanallur, hamlet of Sivagiri Village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Batcha Mohideen Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC450(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner was carrying on business in rice in Gandhi Market, Tiruchirappalli, according to him, till 31st March, 1965. For the year 1961-62, he was finally assessed to sales tax under the Madras, General Sales Tax Act. The original authority fixed a particular taxable turnover; but on appeal it was reduced and even the penalty imposed by the original authority was cancelled. For the year 1962-63, the petitioner submitted his returns in the usual course and towards the said assessment, an enquiry was proposed to be held. In the meantime, however, one Guruswami, who was closely associated with the petitioner's business and who was his employee, was dismissed on a charge of misappropriation, and a criminal complaint preferred by the petitioner against Guruswami ended in his conviction under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. In the criminal case, the petitioner is said to have figured as P.W. 2. As already stated, an enquiry into the accounts and the dealings...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1397
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These proceedings were initiated on a complaint filed by one Chelliah of T. A. S, Rathnam Brothers, The averment found in the complaint is that the accountant of T. A. S. Rathnam Brothers, V. Veerappan, the petitioner, has embezzled their business funds for over several thousands of rupees and that the correct amount is being investigated into and that he should make good any loss that may be determined on account of his handling cash and cheques belonging to the firm. The further allegation is that he has embezzled to the tune of about Rupees 20,000, It is casually stated that the exact embezzlement of amount will be intimated immediately after the final audit is over. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the indictment against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated the funds of the firm to the tune of about three lakhs of rupees by resorting to the modus operandi of falsifying the accounts by forging the signatures of...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Ahmed Vs. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1395
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. S.A. Ahmad (A-l) is the petitioner praying for setting aside the order of the District Magistrate (J) Dharmapuri, directing the return of 70 bags of rice to Subramaniam (A-2) in S.T.R.C. 57 of 1969, dated 24-3-1970. The petitioner states that he was the owner as established by the evidence which has been admitted to be true by the second accused. It is on this ground the petitioner seeks for the return of the 70 bags of rice to him. In the order the learned District Magistrate stated that A.I (when examined Under Section 342, Criminal P.C.) would deny that he had anything to do with this case and he went to the extent of stating that he never produced that bills Exs. P. 6 to P. 11. In my view, Exs. P. 6 to P. 11 ought not to have been marked as prosecution documents in the absence of the proper proof of the contents of the bills either by the vendor or by the buyer. In the absence of such proof the value of Exs. P. 6 to P. 11 would be tantamount to the product...
Tag this Judgment!Vengammal and anr. Vs. Ramachandran (Minor) by Mother Jayalakshmi Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad490; (1971)2MLJ280
Venkataraman, J.1. In this case an appeal memorandum was filed against a particular decision of Sub Court, Vellore, in partition suit. A court-fee of Rs. 200 which was the correct court-fee was affixed to the Memorandum of appeal. But, before the appeal memorandum was numbered and when it was in the stamp register stage, having been numbered as S. R. 17499 of 1968, the appellant were able to compromise the matter with the respondents and therefore filed C. M. P. 1030 of 1971 to withdraw the appeal. That permission was granted. By this application C. M. P. No. 12034 of 1970, the appellants pray for issue of a certificate for refunding the court-fee of Rs. 200.2. It is conceded by Sri T. V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the prayers, is not governed by any specific provision of the Court fee Act of 1955, (those provisions are contained in Section 66 to 70); but the learned counsel relies on a decision of a Bench of this court in Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Swaminathan (Dead) and anr. Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad483; (1971)2MLJ146
1. These appeal are from a common order of Srinivasan, J., who dismissed the petitions of the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, for a direction to the respondent-State Government to forbear from dispossessing or interfering with his right to quarry limestone in Survey No. 59/2 of an extent of 1 acre 66 cents and No. 86/1 of an extent of 10 acres and 31 cents, both situate in Motor village, Sankari taluk of Salem Dt. He had taken out lease deeds from the ryotwari pattadars of the lands for quarrying limestone, and tripartite agreements were executed between the ryotwari pattadars and the State Government as required by the rules., On the expiry of the lease in respect of Survey No. 86/1, the appellant applied for a further term of lease, or in effect, for renewal of it. But by an order dated 14-11-1962, the Government from the Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, declined to grant the application. Likewise, in the case of the other land too, the Government p...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras Advocates' Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ77; [1971]28STC224(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. The membership of the society is restricted to Advocates practising in the city of Madras. One of the objects of the society is the running of a restaurant for the benefit of the members on a non-profit basis. It is claimed that the society was subject to sales tax on the value of the refreshments supplied to its members till 30th September, 1962. But, thereafter, the petitioner did not file the usual returns and claimed exemption on such sales of eatables to its members both on the basis of non-liability to pay tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and also on the ground that it was entitled to exemption. The Government did not exempt and finally what happened was that the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division, by his notice dated 20th July, 1963, called upon the petitioner to file the returns in form A-2 for the months of April and May, 1963. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Parthasarathy Pillai Vs. S.M. Shamsuddeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad98; (1971)2MLJ414
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent herein (landlord) filed H. R. C. No. 1167 of 1968 on the file of the Sixth Judge, Court of Small Causes, for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of (1) requiring the premises for his own use and (2) default in payment of rent. The case of the landlord is that he purchased the house on 3-11-1967 for his own occupation, that he is residing in a rented house, and that the tenant has also committed default in payment of rent from November 1967 to February 1968. The tenant filed a counter denying default and also the requirement by the landlord of the building for his own use. The Rent Controller found that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. He held that the landlord required the building for his own use and he also gave a valid notice to quit. In the result the landlord's application was allowed. The tenant filed H. R. A. No.175 of 1969 to the appellate authority. It was contended by the tenant that the premises in questi...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Panchapakesan Vs. K. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ169
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned City Civil Judge in A.S. No. 324 of 1964. The facts that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated; the appellant herein filed a suit, O.S.No. 1382 of 1962 for recovery of possession of the suit property and for arrears of rent. The suit property measured 48 X 60 and it is a portion of door No. 12, Doraiswami Road, T' Nagar, Madras. The appellant filed the said suit on the basis that the suit property was given on lease to the respondent in December, 1948 subject to certain conditions, that the respondent put up a shed for running a fuel shop in 1949, that subsequently he had put up a bunk in 1952, that he was paying a rent of Rs. 15 per month, that the lease had been duly determined by a valid notice to quit, and that he is entitled to get recovery of the suit property as well as the arrears of rent due from the defendant-respondent. 2. The respondent resisted the suit contending that he was entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »