Chennai Court March 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.
V.S. Kothandapani Naidu Vs. P. Venkatachala Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad178
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O. S. No. 99 of 1960 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore praying for a preliminary decree for taking accounts of a dissolved partnership, to appoint a duly qualified auditor as Commissioner to take charge of the accounts, and to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount found due of him, or in the alternative to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amounts advanced by him to the defendants for the business with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of plaint and for costs. 2. The plaintiff's case was this. The plaintiff is a landlord residing in Uyyakondravi village. Defendants 1 and 2 were his close friends. They were doing jewellery mart and shroff business at Virdhachalam. The third defendant is the undivided brother of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the undivided brother's son of the second defendant. The second defendant is the son-in-law of the first...
S.R. Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. the Ramil Nadu State Government Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1971
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ502
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The Petitioner, Srinivasa Ayyangar, is the owner of door No. 3/98, Vasudevapuram, Triplicane, Madras. The building consists of ground floor and first floor. The petitioner, along with his family, is occupying a portion of the ground floor. The remaining portion of the ground floor has been let out by the petitioner privately to another person. When the first floor fell vacant in the year 1952, the petitioner intimated the vacancy as required under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXV of 1949) and that portion was taken over by the Government and allotted to certain Government servants. The rent was Rs. 55 per month. When one Jayalakshmi, an allottee, vacated, the petitioner, on 17th July, 1969, applied to the Accommodation Controller, Madras, requesting for the release of the upstairs portion for his own occupation alleging inter alia that he had since retired from service as Assistant Accounts Officer, that his family had ...
The Returning Officer (Special Officer) Tiruchirapalli Municipality an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad17; (1971)2MLJ264
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The common point in these appeals is whether the respondents had sustained disqualification under Section 49(2)(g) of the Madras District Municipalities Act. There is no dispute that on the date of filing nominations to wit, 14th December 1970, there was an order of surcharge against each of the respondents, which made them jointly and severally liable to the Municipality in a certain sum. Against the orders of surcharge, there were appeals, but they failed,. From the appellate orders, further appeals were filed to this court, which are said to be pending. On 16th December 1970, the nominations of the respondents were rejected on the ground of the disqualification under the provisions we mentioned. The order rejecting the nominations was quashed by Ramaprasada Rao, J. on the ground that through the first part of Section 49(2)(g) was satisfied, the second part of it was not.2. We are in entire agreement with the learned Judge. It is argued for the appellants that o...
B.S. Rajarama Iyer and anr. Vs. Parasumanna K. Ramaswami Iyer (Decd.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad475; (1971)2MLJ124
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of the original landlady. The respondent who is a tenant in respect of a vacant piece of land, filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 7-A of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That petition was resisted by the petitioners on two grounds: (1) that the tenant cannot seek the benefit of the said Act and have the fair rent fixed under the provisions of that Act and (2) that a portion for fixation of fair rent was not the subject-matter of the original lease. The learned District Munsif, Madurai town, held that the ground of objection raised by the petitioners was not tenable that the tenant was entitled to the benefits of the Act and that the entire property for which the fair rent is sought to be fixed comprised in the original lease deed. After rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners, the learned District Munsif proceeded to fix the fair rent for th...
Jagadishchandra F. Modi Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Divi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC144(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The firm of Messrs J. Prataprai and Company, which was a partnership firm, was dissolved on 31st March, 1966. The petitioner was one of the partners of the quondam firm. On 31st March, 1966, a dissolution of the partnership was effected by a deed in writing and the scheme of dissolution was set out in the said instrument. For the year 1965-66 the firm was assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing officer, after scrutinising the deed of dissolution, found that stocks of the value of Rs. 97,790 were taken over by one of the partners in lieu of his share of the capital and assets of the quondam partnership firm. In that connection and consequent upon the accounting and adjustment as agreed to, the petitioner and another took over stocks of the value of Rs. 97,790. In the return submitted by the quondam partnership firm for the assessment year in question, this turnover was not brought in, as, according t...
Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Vs. Subbalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ266
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore, is the petitioner. The respondent's husband held on 6th April, 1960, 28.255 standard acres as Section I property and 23.226 standard acres as Section VI property. The respondent held more than the ceiling extent under Section VI (stridhanam property) even after granting exemptions. The Authorised Officer. therefore, prepared the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of Madras Act (LXVIII of 1961), which was duly published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 20th October, 1965. The respondent's husband died on 16th January, 1961 and the respondent filed her objections on 27th January, 1966, contending that her holding was within the permissible limit of 30 standard acres, that as heir of her husband she became entitled to a one-third share of the lands held by her deceased husband, that the entire holdings of her husband could not be added to her holding on her husband's death, that each of the two sons became enti...
Jagadishchandra F. Modi Vs. Joint-commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Divi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ256
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The firm of M/s. J. Prataprai Company, which was a partnership-firm, was dissolved on 31st March, 1966. The petitioner was one of the partners of the quondam firm. On 31st March, 1960, a dissolution of the partnership was effected by a deed in writing and the scheme of dissolution was set out in the said instrument. For the year 1965-66' the firm was assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing. Officer, after scrutinising the deed of dissolution, found that stocks of the value of Rs. 97,790 were taken over by one of the partners in lieu of his share of the capital and assets of the quondam partnership-firm. In that connection and consequent upon the accounting and adjustment as agreed to, the petitioner and another took over stocks of the value of Rs. 97,790. In the return submitted, by the quondam partnership-firm for the assessment year in question, this turnover was not brought in, as, according to...
N.M. Swamy Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1255
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the patta lands in Survey Nos. 481, 482, 483 and 477 in Sengundram village. Survey No. 401 alone is a grazing ground poromboke. The grievance of the State is that the petitioner obstructed the public cart-track which goes from Malrozapuram to Karunilam by the petitioner's causing public nuisance in that he placed 'Velikathan thorns' and dug a well in the said public cart-track. The said cart track is reported to pass through Survey Nos. 481, 482, 483, 477, 476, 475, 474, 473, 472, 471, 470. 469, 468, 467, 466 and 401 of Sengundram village.2. On 10-3-1969 the petitioner appeared before the court of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Chingleput in response to a conditional order, issued Under Section 133 (1), Criminal P.C. When the petitioner was required to desist from causing such obstruction to the general public on the road which is lawfully used by the public, the petitioner denied the existence of any public right in respe...
T. Baghchand Galada Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the (Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ120
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the premises No. 83, Sir Thiagaraya Road, T. Nagar, Madras. The said building was taken over by the State Government, the first respondent and alloted to the Southern Railway, the second respondent in the year 1947 for locating the town booking office. The petitioner requested Government to release the building from accommodation for the use of his son. On considering the merits, the Government in their Memorandum dated No. 151766/1A.C. 65-4 Home Department, dated 10th January, 1966 terminated the Government tenancy and directed the Accommodation Controller to inform the railway to secure alternative accommodation within three months. Accordingly, the Accommodation Controller issued proceedings on 22nd January 1966, requesting the railways to secure alternative accommodation within three months and hand over possession of the premises to the Accommodation Controller on or before 9th April, 1966. The railways did not protest at ...
i. Easwara Pillai and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ92
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The three petitioners are brothers and are the sons of one Ayyappan Pillai. This family owned an extent of 2 acres 25 cents in old S. No. 3829 in Neendakara Village, Kanyakumari District. The family effected a partition of their properties by a registered document, dated 23rd February, 1968. Under that partition, each of the three petitioners got 75 cents in old S. No. 3829. But the registry continued to stand in the name of the father, Ayyappan Pillai. To provide house sites for Harijans, proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the petitioners' property was notified under Section 4(1) of the Act. The notification was published on 26th November, 1968, In that notification the name of Ayyappan Pillai was shown as the person interested in the land. Notice of enquiry under Section 5-A was sent to Ayyappan Pillai, who appeared before the Acquisition Officer and gave a statement disclaiming interes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »