Chennai Court February 1971 Judgments
A. Sundarasan Vs. A.C. Thirulokchandar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1971
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ290
S. Maharajan, J.1. The plaintiff sues for declaration that he is the owner of the copyright in a Tamil story, 'nazhuval' written by him, for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from exploiting a film, 'Iru Malargal', which is said to be a reproduction of the plaintiff's story, and for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 40,000. The defendants in their answers deny the basis of the plaintiff's claim Seven issues were framed by Palaniswamy, J., on 6th August, 1970. On the 13th November, 1970, the second defendant filed an additional answer raising the additional plea that the suit is not maintainable for non-registration of the plaintiff's copyright in the story 'nazhuval'.2. The following additional issue No. 8 is framed:Whether the plaintiff's suit, is not maintainable for non-registration of his copyright in the story 'nazhuval'?3. Preliminary arguments were advanced upon issue No. 8, and I shall proceed to give my finding thereon.4. Admittedly, the plaintiff, who...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Subramanian Vs. C.K. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad479
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord (respondent herein) filed R. C. O. P. 200 of 1966 before the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, on 6-6-1966 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his willful default in the payment of rent. The landlord contended that the respondent became his tenant from 2-9-1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 85, that he did not pay the rent from 2-9-1964 till the date of the application namely 6-6-1966, that on 16-4-1966 the tenant sent by M. O. Rs. 50 which was refused because it was not correct amount, and that, therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted. The plea of tenant is that the rent fixed was Rs. 50 per month, that he and the landlord are brothers, that he filed a suit against the landlord in Sub Court in respect of a mortgage executed by him in his favour and that the landlord refused to receive the rent for the months of March and April sent by him by M. O. The Rent Controller, found that willful default on the part of the tenant in pay...
Tag this Judgment!Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Swami Devastanam Devakkottai and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad474; (1971)2MLJ278
1. This appeal by the quondam landholder is from a judgment of Natesan, J., reported in Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devastanam, Devakottai, by its trustees v. Duraiswami Nadar and another, 1967-2 Mad LJ 181. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by Silambani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devastanam, Devakottai, by its trustees, to recover rent from the first respondent in respect of a site let out to him for building purposes. The tenancy commenced prior to 1948. The site is situate in a village which constituted an estate. That was notified and taken over under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. On that date, the building continued in the first respondent's occupation. There is no dispute that on the notified date Devastanam was the landholder. The defence was that under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the suit site along with the building had vested in the first respondent, and the title of the appellant as a landholder got extinguished. There ap...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkataraman and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC426(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The common point in these cases is whether cinder is coal and, if it is not, its sale will be subject to multi-point tax. The point is really covered by Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras [1965] 16 S.T.C. 684. There, one of us in detail considered the question and held that cinder was the residue or ash that was left when coal or coke was burnt and was removed of its combustible matter. Reference in that judgment was made to Fletcher v. Fields [1891] 1 Q.B. 790. That was a case decided with reference to the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and there it was held that, looking into the object of the statutory inhibition of loading and unloading coke on or across the footway between certain hours, coke was no more coal than cinders were. We do not think it necessary to reiterate what has been stated by one of us in Varadarajulu Naidu v. State of Madras [1965] 16 S.T.C. 684. Nothing that has been said at the Bar has persuaded us to take a contrary view. We may also me...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Babi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1488
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The accusation has been summarised as follows for which the answer given by the petitioner is this:The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, has laid a charge-sheet against you for an offence Under Section 8 (a) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, alleging that on 25-3-1969 between 2-15 and 3 p. m. when A. K. Thagapillai Buildings at Kallakuruchi was searched by him you and two others were found in the A, K. T. Building and wilfully exposing your person indecently and making gestures and soliciting the public for prostitution. Do you plead guilty or not?It is true Guilty.The text of Section 8 (a) contains words of vital importance, namely 'in any public place or within sight of'; in other words, the woman, who makes a wilful exposure of her person either by words or by gestures, must have been situated either in any public place or within sight of and in such manner as to be be seen or heard from any public place. These ingredi...
Tag this Judgment!M.E. Balkis Beevi Ammal Vs. Jubeda Beevi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ130
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. The suit is for declaration of title to the suit house and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and alternatively for possession. The first plaintiff and the defendant are the wives of one Mohammad Sheriff Rowther. The defendant claiming to be a pardanashin lady filed I. A. No. 167 of 1970 to have her examined on commission on the ground that she strictly observes gosha, and therefore unable to attend Court and give evidence. In the counter affidavit filed the respondent-plaintiff contended that the defendant is seen travelling in buses and freely moving outside in Kothanallur and neighbouring villages and therefore she is not a lady observing gosha and therefore there is no impediment to her coming into Court to give evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application. The above revision petition is filed against the said order. It is contended on behalf of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapathi Padayachi Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Ceilings, Thanjav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad384
ORDER1. The petitioner herein owned an extent of 4.87 standard acres and he had taken on lease an extent of 5.07 standard acres. The Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms), Thanjavur after enquiry held that the petitioner held an extent of 4.94 standard acres in excess of the cultivating tenant's ceiling area and declared it to be surplus under Section 61(3)(b) of Madras Act 58 of 1961. Aggrieved against that decision the petitioner went before the Land Tribunal. Before the land Tribunal it was contended by the petitioner that though he owned an extent of 5.07 standard acres, that extent is not in his actual cultivation, but that it has been leased out to one Chinnappa Padayachi, his brother's son. On that ground the petitioner wanted exclusion of the said extent of 5.07 standard acres from his cultivating tenant's ceiling area. The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced in the case on behalf of the petitioner and found that the enquiry by the filed staff of the Authorised Officer had re...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappavu Naidu Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad453
1. This second appeal raises an interesting point as to whether after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the disqualification imposed by Section 2 of the Hindu Widow's Re-marriage Act. 1856, continues to have force. The Courts below held that the former Act prevails. On a careful consideration we accept that view. The first plaintiff was the widow of the defendant's brother. Her husband died in 1955. Thereafter she remarried. The defendant was alleged to have trespassed upon the property to which the first plaintiff had succeeded as the heir to her husband and on that claim, she asked for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering. She also asked for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 8000, being according to her, the value of 80 bags of paddy cut and carried away by him. The lower appellate court while accepting the decree of the trial court declaring the title of the first plaintiff, remitted the suit to the trial cour...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Veerasikku and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ770
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Briefly the facts are : Both the accused 1 and 2 are the petitioners. They are the driver and cleaner of the lorry bearing No. M DA 3952 respectively. They Carried 56 bags of rice from Madurai to Kambam on 20-7-1968 without any permit or licence to deal is such commodity. They were convicted under Clause i (1) of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers Licensing and Regulation Order of 1968 read with Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essen. tial Commodities Act. Mr. Sriramulu's argu. ment is that neither the driver nor the cleaner (neither A-1 nor A-2) could be a 'dealer' within the meaning of Clause 3 (o) of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers Licensing and Regulation Order of 1968, for they are not engaged in the business ol purohase or movement or sale or storage for Bale of paddy or ride in quantity of two quintals or more at any one time in the State, Learned Public Prosecutor oonoeded tha said position in law by reason of the significant phrase in the definition cla...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Amiappa Nainar (Died) and ors. Vs. N. Annamalai Chettiar (Died) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad154
1. The above two second appeals are referred by Ismail J., in view of the conflicting decisions of this court on the admissibility of boundary recitals in documents not inter partes. In order to appreciate the reference. it is necessary to set out briefly the facts.2. Defendants 1 and 2 are appellants in S. A. 1157 of 1963 and the 5th defendant is the appellant in S. A. 19 of 1964. Both second appeals arise out of O. S. 530 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tiruvannamalai. The plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the suit site in the village of Kalasapakkam and for possession. The plaintiff's case is that the suite site originally belonged to the Periathambi Chetti, the father-in-law of the 3rd defendant Muniammal and the great grandfather of the 4th defendant minor Kasi Chetti. The said Periathambi was in possession and enjoyment of the site by installing a country oil mill thereon. While so certain enemies of his complained to the Government t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »