Chennai Court April 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.
Ponnamma Kaliamma Vs. Kumara Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad200
1. Appellant Ponnamma filed the suit O. S. No. 41 of 1962, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagarcoil, for partition and separate possession of a half share in the estate of Adhikesavaperumal Pillai on the ground that she is his legally wedded wife. She impleaded Kumara Pillai, the legitimate son of Adhikesavaperumal Pillai, through his first wife, as the first defendant in the suit, and he was represented by his guardian Kamalamma, as he was found to be a lunatic. The second defendant Kesava Pillai is the son of Kumara Pillai. The third defendant is the Advocate-receiver appointed to manage the properties of Kumara Pillai. The defendants contested the claim of the appellant that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Adhikesavaperumal Pillai. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, has found that the appellant has not proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Adhikesavaperumal Pillai and ...
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ502
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, questioning the legality of the Cement Control (Amendment) Order of 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Order) which came into force on the 16th of April, 1969, introducing certain changes in the Cement Control Order of 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Order.2. The writ petitioners asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus and other appropriate directions. Ismail, J., accepted the contentions of the petitioners on all the main points and allowed the writ petitions issuing certain directions. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2243 of 1969; Madras Cement Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2244 of 1969 and the India Cements Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P. No. 2245 of 1969.3. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, New Delhi, and (2) The Cement Controller, New Delhi, the respon...
Gnana Prakasi Vs. Devadhason Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ40
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed the suit in a representative capacity for a declaration that the plaintiff and the other villagers of Amarathivilai, Marungoor Village have a right of way in the site marked ABCDEFG in the plan attached to the plaint and for an injunction. The defendants denied the right claimed by the plaintiff and villagers. The learned District Munsif held that the pathway was in existence for a long time and passed the decree as prayed for excluding the portion X Y Z marked in the plan attached to the decree. Defendants preferred an appeal and the 2nd defendant preferred a Second Appeal to this Court in S.A. No. 1045 of 1962. This Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the Court below except in so far as it related to the easementary right on the west of the two houses M.P. Nos. 1/543 and 1/542. In regard to this portion the decree was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court below for fresh disposal on the ...
C.V. Gokulapathy and ors. Vs. K.R. Venkatarama Sarma, Advocate Receive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad54; (1971)2MLJ320
Ramaswami, J.1. These are appeals by the defendants in O. S. Nos. 867, 1109 and 1411 of 1962 on the file of the City Civil Court Madras, against the decree directing eviction from the suit plots.2. The plaintiff in all the suits is the Receiver appointed by the High Court in O. S. A. No. 52 of 1960 in respect of the suit properties and other properties belonging to one late P. S. Narayana Iyer and his sons. The plaint allegations were as follows: The suit properties were comprised in R. S. Nos. 132, 244/2 and 133. They belonged to the estate of P. S. Narayana Iyer. They were purchased by Narayana Iyer and his son Krishna Iyer. These lands were cultivated by Narayana Iyer and Krishna Iyer through one Lakshmana Naicker, Krishna Iyer predeceased his father. After the death of Narayana Iyer, there were disputes relating to the estate and a suit was filed in the High Court and in those proceedings, the plaintiff was appointed as Receiver. The plaintiff on enquiry found that the defendants h...
Subramanyam Vs. Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad3; (1971)2MLJ323
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit in forma pauperis for partition and separate possession of his half share in plaint B schedule properties and for setting aside the various transfers and alienations in favour of defendants 3 to 18. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, being sons of one Pichu Iyer. The second defendant is the widow of Pichu Iyer and the mother of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 18 are the alienees of the major portion of the suit properties. The alienations were by the mother on behalf of the plaintiff and the first defendant, and some of them were by the first defendant himself. The case of the plaintiff was that these sales were not for legal necessity and that therefore they were not binding on the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the sales effected in their favour were true, valid and for legal necessity and therefore binding on the plaintiff. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation as it had not been file...
Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Joint Commercial Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC1(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. Since this batch of petitions raises a common question, they have been heard together. The petitioners are sugar manufacturers and they have been assessed to sales tax. Sale of sugarcane was chargeable to tax at a percentage, which has been varying, according to the amendment in force at the relevant time at the point of last purchase. This is provided for in entry 62 of Schedule I read with section:3(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. To take a typical case, in W.P. No. 396 of 1970 the assessee is Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Limited. The assessment year is 1968-69. Section 14(1) of the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949, as amended by Madras Act 1 of 1962, levies a cess at a certain rate on sugarcane brought into any local area specified in a notification for consumption, use or sale therein. The liability to pay cess is on the assessee. This appears from Rule 11 of the Madras Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1949. Under this rule within a fortnight...
Union of India, Owning Eastern Railway by Its General Manager, Calcutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad134; (1971)2MLJ257
1. The defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 1975 of 1963 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras who failed before the trial court, as well as the first appellate Judge are the appellants before this court. The respondent herein placed an order at Madras with M/s. P. Savan and Co. at Calcutta (3rd defendant in the suit) for supply of 12 cases of camphor. The third defendant entrusted 12 cases of camphor to the first appellant, Eastern Railway at Calcutta, to be carried over to Madras by the respondent herein at Madras. The second appellant collected the freight for all the 12 cases from the respondent but gave delivery only of ten cases and did not deliver the other two cases. The case of the respondent with regard to the other two cases was that he was asked to come and enquire at the office from time to time; that notwithstanding many enquiries made by him. he did not obtain delivery of the two cases of camphor; that ultimately he issued a notice and made a claim for the value of the ...
S. Sarangapani Chettiar Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-cum-in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR59(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, as accountable person, is aggrieved against the order of assessment made by the respondent on December 31, 1965, under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner has availed himself of the alternative statutory remedy available to him under the Act and the appeal is reported to be still pending. He has come to this court also for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment as above on the ground that he is not liable in law to account or pay the duty as assessed. The relevant facts are as follows :Gopalasami Chettiar, the prepositus, died leaving a will dated September 8, 1908. The will is not challenged. Under the will he created a scheme of testate succession in respect of certain properties of his. His wife, Seshammal, was to have a life estate therein. Thereafter, his daughter Ramathilakam, was to enjoy the properties for her life. After Ramathilakam's death, the estate was to devolve on...
S. Sarangapani Chettiar Vs. Assistant Controller Estate Duty-cum-incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ135
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, as accountable person, is aggrieved against the order of assessment made by the respondent on 31st December, 1965, under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner has availed himself of the alternative statutory remedy available to him under the Act and. the appeal is reported to be still pending. He has come to this Court also for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of assessment as above on the ground that he is not liable in law to account or pay the duty as assessed. The relevant facts are as follows.2. Gopalaswami Chettiar, the propositus, died leaving a will dated 8th September, 1908. The will is not challenged. Under the will he created a scheme of testate succession in respect of certain properties of his. His wife Seshammal was to have a life estate therein. Thereafter his daughter Ramathilakam was to enjoy the properties for her life. After Ramathilakam's death, the estate was to dev...
The State of Madras Vs. P. Seetharamammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad170
Venkataraman, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the State of Madras against the judgment of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, awarding compensation in respect of the lands acquired by the Government for rehabilitating the persons displaced from Ganapathinagar Colony, Guindy. The lands were vacant and were near Chamiers Road. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition officer, the persons whose lands were acquired got a reference made to the City Civil Court, and the learned Judge enhanced the amount of compensation payable and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4000 per ground. In addition, he granted a sum of Rs. 5000 to the claimants in two cases, L. A. C. 38 and 441 of 1961 for the injury sustained by them in respect of the properties still remaining in their hands on account of the acquisition of the plots in question. Similarly, in respect of another claim, he awarded a compensation of Rupees 1000 under this head. Aggrieved by this decision th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »