Chennai Court July 1971 Judgments
The Highways Department of South Arcot, Cuddalore Vs. Vedanthachariar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad148
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Second defendant, the Highways Department of South Arcot, represented by the District Collector of South Arcot, Cuddalore, is the appellant. The first defendant is the proprietor of a service bus bearing No. MDF 2015 and known as K. T. R. Bus service. The third defendant is the New India Asiatic Insurance Co., with whom the said bus had been insured. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against these defendants claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000. on account of the death of their son Santhanagopalan in the accident that took place at or 5-30 a. m. on 14-11-1960, at 14/2 milestone in the Vridhachalam-Cuddalore road due to the culvert giving way and the bus plunging into the channel. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Cuddalore held that there was no negligence on the part of the first defendant or his driver and that, therefore, they were not liable for damages and in that view dismissed the suit as against the first and third defendants. But so far as the second defe...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatachala thevar Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR701(Mad)
Ramaprasada, J.1. The writ petitioner is the father propositus. In 1954, he settled properties which belonged to him in favour of his minor son and daughters, who were born by that time, and also in favour of his wife. In the process, he settled an extent of 50.05 1/2 acres in favour of his wife, Padmavathi Ammal. This settlement was effected on August 6, 1954. After the execution of the settlement deed, two children were born to the petitioner, one a male, on September 22, 1955, and another, a female, on December 4, 1959. After the birth of these two children, Padmavathi Ammal, purporting to act in her own right, executed a deed of settlement in favour of her after-born children, Rajendran and Parvathi, and under the settlement deed dated March 24, 1960, she gave away an extent of 42 acres in favour of both the children and reserved for herself the balance of 8.05 1/2 acres. Till the assessment year 1961-62, the holding of the writ petitioner was reckoned ignoring the settlements made...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Ammal Vs. K.N. Rangababu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ194
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal involves, a question of limitation. The appellant filed a suit O.S. No. 2441 of 1964 on, the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that the family arrangement entered into on 14th February, 1958. between her and the defendants is null,, void and not binding on her, That suit came to be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The question therefore is whether the appellant's suit is within time as urged by her.2. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants in the suit and they are the children of one Nadhamuni Naidu. They purported to enter into a family arrangement under a registered document dated 14th February, 1958 along with their father who was then alive. Under the terms of the document the defendants are to take the various items of properties for themselves on condition that they have to purchase a property for a sum of Rs. 15,000 as a provision for the plaintiff on or before 1st January, i960. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaseenivasa Iyengar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. S. Padmasani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1971
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ34
S. Ganesan, J.1. O.E.A. No. 129 of 1965 in O.E.P. No. 64 of 1965 in O.S. No. 387 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif of Ranipet out of which this appeal arises has been instituted by Thiru Ramaseenivasa Iyengar, the first appellant (since deceased), whose legal representative is Rajalakshmi Ammal, the second appellant herein, under Section 50, Civil Procedure Code for impleading the respondent Srimathi Padmasani Ammal as a legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor Chellammal ; and it is alleged in the affidavit that Chellammal, the judgment-debtor died without any issue and that Srimathi Padmasani Ammal her legal representative is in possession of her assets.2. It is contended by the respondent who is the sister of the judgment-debtor Chellammal that their father Venkatachari executed a will on 15th March, 1940 bequeathing the properties to his two daughters, namely, the respondent and Chellammal with a stipulation that, in the event of any one of them dying issueless...
Tag this Judgment!Sellayya Pillai Vs. Devaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad309
ORDER1. This is an application to review the judgment and decree passed by Alagiriswami, J. in S. A. No. 1048 of 1966. Before I deal with the application, I shall set out the facts giving rise to the above second appeal.2. The suit is for possession. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property originally belonged to one kamakshi Ammal, widow of one Thangaraju alias Sappani Pillai, that she was the divided brother's widow, that due to affection towards the plaintiff she executed a settlement deed on 22-1-1948 setting the properties mentioned therein, including the suit items, in favour of the plaintiff that under the settlement deed the plaintiff got right in all the properties including the suit items, that the right to possession in favour of the plaintiff was however, postponed till after the lifetime of the settlor, that the settlor Kamakshi Ammal died on 17-3-1963, and that the plaintiff became entitled to take possession of the suit properties and enjoy the same absolutely. The...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sundara Rajan Vs. Deputy Inspector-general of Police Central Range ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ103
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. When the petitioner, Sundara Rajan, was serving as the Officiating Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur, Tiruchirapalli District, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karur, framed six charges of receiving illegal gratification from certain persons, conducted an enquiry, submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Tiruchirapalli, holding that three out of the six charges were proved. After getting the explanation of the petitioner, the punishing authority found that only two charges were proved, and passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner with effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension. The appeal preferred against that order to the Inspector-General of Police was dismissed. The revision filed before the State of Madras was also dismissed. This writ petition is filed to quash the said order of dismissal as confirmed in appeal and revision.2. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of dismissal on the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrakumar Ishwarlal and Co. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1971
Reported in: [1973]91ITR101(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions common questions are involved. It is, therefore, sufficient to refer to the material facts in one of the writ petitions. I am narrating the facts in W.P. No. 1722 of 1967, for purposes of convenience. At the outset I may mention that the only point urged before me by the counsel appearing in this batch of writ petitions is that Section 139(1), proviso (iii)(a) and (b), of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is ultra vires because the same is discriminatory in character and, therefore, violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that in these writ petitions the petitioners as assessees under the Act in the status of registered firms filed returns beyond time and made necessary applications to the Income-tax Officer to excuse the delay in the non-submission of the return within time. Having obtained such an order by invoking the statutory discretion of the income-tax authorities it is said that the provision as a...
Tag this Judgment!P.J.S. Jayarama Chettiar Vs. D. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad150
1. Upon the question of valuation of the suit house, the parties are concluded by the concurrent findings of the courts below that it is worth Rupees 20,000 and that the plaintiff should pay the defendant a sum of Rs. 10,000 representing a moiety of the market value. I do not think that these findings are vitiated by any error of law or by any misappreciation of the evidence on record. The only question of law raised by the appellant is that the market value of the house should have been ascertained, not as on the date when the half share was ordered to be sold, but as on the date on which the defendant offered to purchase the plaintiff's half share in 1963. Section 3 of the Partition Act prescribes that if, in any case in which the court is requested under Section 2 to direct a sale, any other shareholder applies for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares of the party or parties asking for a sale, the court shall order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it m...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Sundaram and Co. Vs. the State of Tamilnadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad313
ORDER1. This writ petition has to be allowed. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of S. N. Sundaram and Co., and has a wholesale licence to trade in paddy and rice. On 3-10-1970 he is said to have received 105 bags of rice from Tirunelveli and as he had no accommodation is his shop he unloaded it in the premises of Smt. Arunachalammal his brother's wife. According to him, he intimated the fact of the said unloading at the above premises to the concerned authority as it is obligatory on his part to do so under one of the conditions of the licence. At about 4 p. m. on 3-10-1970 the Circle Inspector of Police of the region inspected the shop and under the guise of exercising power under Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers Licensing and Regulation Order, 1968, he seized certain quantity of paddy in the shop of the premises, some other bags at his residence and the 105 bags referred to above at the brother's wife's house. The reason given was that the petitioner was unauthori...
Tag this Judgment!Srimagal and Co. Vs. Books (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1971
Reported in: AIR1973Mad49
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The defendant appeals from a decree of Kailasam, J. granting the first plaintiff-respondent, a sum of Rs. 2,500 by way of damages for infringement of the first plaintiff's copyright in the Tamil translation of the autobiography of the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. It appears that some time in 1936. Thiru Sa. Ganesan had been permitted by Pandit Nehru in about 1955 authorised the first plaintiff to translate the autobiography and sell the same. The first plaintiff coming across sales of translations by the defendant exchanged notices in about 1959 complaining of infringement of his copyright and damages which eventually led to the suit. In July 1957 the defendant had printed 1200 copies of which 200 were said to be complimentary copies. Of the remaining 1000, 957 copies were sold by him which resulted in a profit of Rs. 2,000. In November 1957 the first plaintiff had printed 15000 copies of the book and made arrangements to publish the same as a popular edition at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »