Chennai Court July 1971 Judgments
C. Dakshinamurthy Vs. K.K. Venkataswamy Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad241
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents herein for damages for malicious prosecution. The appellant had filed a complaint Ex. B-4 dated 17-4-1965 to the police alleging that the respondents had cut an Odiya tree belonging to him, and that it amounted to criminal trespass and mischief punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and requesting them to prosecute the respondents. As the police did not take any action on his complaint, the appellant filed a private complaint against the respondents before the Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore. In the private complaint, the appellant-defendant alleged that the 1st respondent/1st plaintiff began cutting his Odiya tree, and that when he obstructed such cutting the 2nd respondent/2nd plaintiff attempted to assault him with a broom stick. The said complaint was taken on file in C. C. 1753 of 1965 and ultimately the plaintiffs were discharged holding that the complaint had not established at least a prima facie case of ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Chandu Kutti Kurup Vs. Gulam Mohideen Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad305
ORDER1. The obstructor to the execution is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the landlord who filed O. S. 791 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Salem, against his tenant Ponnuram Chetti for possession. the suit was compromised, and, as per the compromise, the plaintiff became entitled to possession. Ponnuram Chetti failed to surrender possession within the time mentioned in the compromise decree. When the landlord went to take delivery of possession with the Amin, the revision petitioner who claims to be a tenant under Ponnuram Chetti obstructed delivery, with the result that the delivery was not effected and the present application was filed under Order XXI, Rule 97, C. P. C. for removal of the obstruction.2. The case of the obstructor is that the suit and the compromise decree were collusive and fraudulent intended mainly to evict him. His further case is that originally the suit site was let out to one Balan Nambiar, the brother-in-law of the obstructor, in 1945, th...
Tag this Judgment!Selvadas and ors. Vs. Rev. A.M. Bensam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ799
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is directed against the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Kanyakumari, in MC 59/70 on his file, wherein he has upheld the possession of the Christ Koil Church situate as (sic) Palliyadi in Kanyakumari district in the members of the A party. There were disputes about the possession and management of this Church between two groups. The Inspector of Police. Thuckalay reported on 19-2-70 that breach of the peace was imminent. Thereupon the Executive Additional First Class Magistrate, took the matter on his file as MC 2/70 issued a preliminary order under Sections 145 (1) and 147 Cr. P. C. and called upon the members of both the groups to appear before him and file written statements setting forth their claims. This they did and thereupon he transferred the case to the District Magistrate (J), Kanyakumari for disposal. Before him both the sides filed documents and affidavits. By his order D/- 1-8-1970 he declared that the Church was in the posse...
Tag this Judgment!L.K. Muthiah Pillai and ors. Vs. the Panchayat Union Commissioner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ110
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions a common question is involved, and it is' agreed that the facts in W.P. No. 4281 of 1970, may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as a Social Welfare Worker by direct recruitment in proceedings issued by the Additional Development Commissioner, dated 25th April, 1962. His scale of pay was fixed and it is not disputed that it was a regular appointment made by the appointment authorities. At the time when the petitioner joined duty he was 48 years of age. His probation was declared to be satisfactory on 17th May, 1963. The case of the petitioner is that under G.O. No. 2341, Rural Development and Local Administration, dated 30th October, 1965, the Government issued an order that the age limit of superannuation should be enhanced from 55 to 60 years in the case of political sufferers who took part in the freedom struggle and that executive instruction was made applicable to the petitioner and persons similarly placed. Later...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Ibrahim Saheb Vs. the Special Officer for Wakfs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad48
ORDER1. Sheik Ibrahim Saheb, the petitioner herein, stands convicted and sentenced top pay a fine of Rs. 25/- for an offence under Section 41, Clauses (a) and (b), of the Wakf Act, 1954 viz. the failure to furnish statements of particulars, accounts or returns, as required by the said Act and failure to supply information or particulars as required by the Board. Clause (2) of Section 40 of this Act states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act, save upon complaint made by the Board in this behalf, The complaint which purports to be by him. there is also no evidence to show that he had authorised P. W. 1 has not stated that he has any such authorisation from the Special Officer. What all he has deposed to is that he has been authorised to conduct cases in Court by the Special Officer. This is not sufficient. On this ground alone, the conviction has to be set aside. The same is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted. Fine, if collected, shall be refund...
Tag this Judgment!Brilliant Match Works Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: [1974]33STC320(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of matches and carrying on under the name and style Brilliant Match Works, Sivakasi, Ramanathapuram District. He was an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and he was assessed finally to tax under the said Act on 31st January, 1963, for the assessment year 1961-62. The course of business of the petitioner appears to be to market the goods through his exporting company known as Sivakasi Matches Exporting Company, Sivakasi. In allied proceedings under the Income-tax Act, the question came up whether Sivakasi Matches Exporting Company, Sivakasi, were entitled to registration under the Income-tax Act and in that action the Supreme Court perused the agreement between the Sivakasi Matches Exporting Company and the petitioner and other documents and found that the exporting company was entitled to a commission on the entire production of the matches by the petitioner-factory, whether sales were effected through that firm ...
Tag this Judgment!The Allied Industries Corporation Through Its Proprietrix P.G. Sivakam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ172
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These appeals are against orders of dismissal of the applications filed by the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 9o, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside two Court auction sales of different portions of the hypotheca held on 3rd November, 1969 and 16th February, 1970. The hypotheca consists of eight items. Three of them, items 1, 2 and 8 Were sold on 3rd November, 1969, for the upset price fixed by Court, namely, Rs. 9,550 and the decree-holder the Syndicate Bank was itself the auction-purchaser. It may be taken at present that the Syndicate Bank obtained leave to bid. The other sale was of items 3 to 7. They were sold on 16th December, 1970 for Rs. 2,750 the upset price. The purchaser was again the decree-holder-Bank. E.A. No. 1118 of 1969 was filed on 2nd December, 1969, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale held on 3rd November, 1969. E.A. No. 1117 of 1969 was filed to dispense with the security contemplated by the proviso to ...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Krishnappa Chetty Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ377
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant, who is common in both the appeals, contends that the order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., allowing the petitions of the contesting respondents is based on an erroneous view of the scope of Rule 9 of the Madras Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. Seven persons including the appellant and the contesting respondents applied for lease of quarry right of sand in survey No. 1 (Paimash No. 12/1 Pt.) in river pormboke of Athur Village in Ponneri Taluk. The period applied for by each of them varied and so too the amount offered. For instance, the appellant who had made an offer of Rs. 16,000 for five years of quarrying improved it by offering Rs. 26,000 for the same period. The respondent Gangadharan offered Rs. 3,000 for each of the three years and the respondent Dorairangam Rs. 4,000 for each of the five years. The other applicants offered between Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 5,000 for terms of five years, except in one case where the term was three years. The Collector w...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan Soap Works and anr. Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC468(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In these two writ petitions common questions arise. It is agreed that the facts in Writ Petition No. 1112 of 1967 may be noted. The petitioner effected purchases of a variety of goods between 29th December, 1966, to 31st December, 1966, at Madras and was transporting such goods by lorry MSW 4595 to Salem. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Cross Road Check Post, Chinna Salem, intercepted the lorry at 10-10 A.M. on 2nd January, 1967, and found that the goods were not covered by bills and delivery notes which were required under such circumstances under Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, he gave two memos, both of the same date, namely, 2nd January, 1967. The first one was to call upon the petitioner to compound the offence under Section 46 of the Act, the offence itself being a contravention of one of the provisions of the Act which is treated as an offence under Section 45(2)(d). He was asked to compound the offence by paying a ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, by Its Commissioner Vs. Syed NaziruddIn Hussain ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ132
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. C.R.Ps. Nos. 2434 to 2437 arise out of certain suits instituted by the Municipal Council, Trivellore, against the respondent for recovery of certain sums of money as balance of licence fee due on a private market and C R. Ps. Nos. 2438 and 2439 arise out of suits filed by the market-owner against the Manicipal Council, Trivellore, for recovery of the amount deposited with the Manicipal Council and also for a declaration that the levy of licence fee is invalid. The matter came up before the High Court on an earlier occasion and the learned Chief Justice remanded the appeals to the District Judge with the following observations:Since this is a fee and not a tax and since it has been explicitly laid down that to levy such a fee without rendering any corresponding services would ipso facto make the imposition itself, invalid, it is for the municipality first to show that corresponding services were rendered.Pleadings are not proof; and, a mere schedule of particulars do...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »