Chennai Court August 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.
K. Gopalachari Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad365
Raghavan, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act 23 of 1969. The allegations in each of these writ petitions are almost the same and for the sake of convenience we set out the allegations in W.P. 6 of 1970. The petitioners owns in Perungudi vattam. Thirumayam taluk Pudukottai Division. Tiruchirapalli Dt. Punja and nanja lands of an extent of 25 acres known as Kadayakudi alias Vichitraraya Raghunathasamudram. These lands were acquired by the joint family of which the petitioner was a member by purchase from the alienees of the original inamdars or their descendants. The petitioner got the above lands for his share at the partition in the joint family.2. In the year 1888 Pudukottai Darbar framed rules for the settlement of inams known as pudukottai Inam Settlement Rules. 1888 similar to the Madras Inam Settlement Rules. 1859. Under the said Pudukottai Inam Rules, Inams were converted i...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ374
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The State of Madras is the appellant. The respondent entered service as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II in 1942 at Coimbatore and was promoted to Grade I in 1945 and posted to Erode. He held the post till 1958 when as a result of investigation by the Crime Branch into certain complaints, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings conducted proceedings dated 24th May, 1958 against him. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings framed 14 charges and conducted an equiry. After the evidence had been fully recorded and at the stage of hearing arguments, there was a change in the personnel of the Tribunal. The succeeding Officer heard the oral arguments, perused the written arguments as well and submitted his report to the Government. Out of the 14 charges framed against the respondent the Tribunal found that only four charges were proved. The Government accepted the report of the Tribunal and issued a show cause notice to the respondent to show cause why he should n...
M.N.A. Abdul Rahiman Rowther Vs. V.S. Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ164
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that the award dated 31st May, 1962 made by the Labour Court, Madurai in I.D. No. 42 of 1961 was null and void. He contended that the dispute that was decided under that award was an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute and that therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. He also contended that the award was also liable to be set aside on the ground that certain principles of natural justice had been violated. The Labour Court had found as a fact that plaintiff resorted to unfair libour practice and victimised the defendants and that, therefore, the Labour Court had directed reinstatement of the defendants in service. The plaintiff preferred a writ petition in the High Court canvassing the validity of the award more of less on the same grounds on which this suit has been filed, but ultimately he did not succeed. The defendants contended that the dispute in question was an industrial dispu...
Azizunnissa Begum Vs. V. Govindan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ169
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, Azizunnissa Begum, seeks to revise the decree and judgment in Ejectment Appeal No. 11 of 1968, reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court in M.P. No. 633 of 1966 in Ejectment Suit No. 11 of 1966, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The petitioner sued for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he was a tenant in respect of a portion of Paimash No. 311/1 and 311/2 in Kodambakkam, measuring 63 X 27, after terminating the tenancy. The respondent filed M.P. No. 633 of 1966, in the ejectment suit, claiming the benefit of Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent pleaded that originally one Arumugham Chettiar was in occupation of the site as lessee of the petitioner, that on 20th September, 1954, he sold the superstructure and his leasehold rights to one Antony, and that Antony in his turn sold the superstructure and the leasehold rights to him (the respondent) on 12th Januar...
Kumarasami Alias Muthukumaraswami Vs. theagarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ166
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam directing eviction under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955). Theagarajan, the respondent herein, and Dhanapackiam, his mother, filed the petition under Section 3 (4^ (a) of Madras Act XXV of 1955 in. the Revenue Court for eviction of one Annamalai Padayachi (since dead) and, Kumaraswami, the petitioner. By his order dated 4th February, 1971, the Presiding Officer of the Revenue Court directed 'the respondents to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 1,506-83 on or before 10th February, 1971, and report the fact to this Court on 11th February, 1971, failing which he will be evicted from the suitlands'. In pursuance of this interim order the matter was taken up on 18th February, 1971, and the following final order was passed:When the case is taken up today for hearing both the petitioner and the respondent are present. The petitioner has made a...
V. Govindaswami Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ153
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk in the Polur Panchayat Union, North Arcot district, on 15th November, 1969, after having; been interviewed and selected by the appointment committee constituted under Section 53 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The post to which he was appointed was a permanent one but the appointment was made on a temporary basis. The Commissioner of the Panchayat, the second respondent, by proceedings, dated 8th April 1970, ousted the petitioner from service with immediate effect.. This petition is filed to quash the said, order.2. The case of the respondents, the first respondent being the Revenue Divisional Officer, Timvannamalai, on whose instructions the second respondent, the Commissioner, issued the impugned proceeding is that the post should have been filled up by appointing a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled; tribe, according to the communal rotation, that...
K. Gopalachari and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1971
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ90
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. This batch of writ petitions relate to the validity of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act (XXIII of 1969). The allegations in each of these writ petitions are almost the same and for the sake of convenience we set out the allegations in W.P. No. 6 of 1970. The petitioner owns in Perungudi Vattam, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai Division, Tiruchirapalli District punja, and nanja lands of an extent of 25 acres known as Kadayakudi alias Vichitraraya Raghunatha samudram. There lands were acquired by the joint family of which the petitioner was a member by purchase from the alienees of the original inamdars or their descendants. The petitioner got the above lands for his share at the partition in the joint family.2. In the year 1888 Pudukottai Darbar framed rules for the settlement of inams known as Pudukottai Inam Settlement Rules, 1888 similar to the Madras Inam Settlement Rules, 1859. Under the said Pudukottai Inam Rules, i...
D. Lohiah Chetty Vs. the M.P.H.J.S. Nidhi or the Permanent General Ben ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad407
1. The appellant herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,510 on various occasions from the respondent Nidhi on pledge of certain jewels, after executing promissory notes. Exs. B-1 to B. 6 are six of the promissory notes executed by him. On the first two loans borrowed in the year 1954 and 1955 the rate of interest mentioned was 6 1/4 per cent per annum and on the rest 6 3/4 per cent per annum. However, under the promissory notes executed by the appellant for the various borrowings, he had agreed to pay interest at the rate mentioned therein 'or such other rate as may, from time to time, be fixed by the directors of the said Nidhi and notified by them at the office of the said Nidhi.' Relying on this clause, the respondent Nidhi demanded interest at the rate of 10 1/2 per cent per annum as and from 1-7-1966 but the appellant refused to pay interest at the enhanced rate. In view of the appellant's attitude the respondent brought the pledged jewels to sale on 10-3-1968. With a view to avert that s...
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC266(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, is the writ petitioner. The Devasthanam statutorily functions under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh during the relevant year in question and is managed by a Board of Trustees. The funds of the Devasthanam may be utilised for purposes mentioned in Section 85 of the Act, which includes the maintenance, management and administration of the Devasthanam, the foundation and maintenance of hospitals and dispensaries for the relief of the pilgrims and worshippers visiting the temples, the construction and maintenance of choultries and rest-houses for the use and accommodation of all classes of pilgrims, the provision of water supply and other sanitary arrangements to the pilgrims, the establishment and maintenance of a veterinary hospital etc. Amongst other purposes, the Devasthanam is to set apart a sum of not less than two and...
R. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. G. Anthuraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad185
1. This is second appeal by the 4th defendant arising out of a suit for redemption. The property, an extent of 2 acres 75 cents, originally belonging to one Gabriel by purchase in June, 1932. He usufructuarily mortgaged on acre comprised in S. No. 124 out of 2 acres 75 cents to one Antony Cruz for Rs. 300/-. The deed provided for 30 years for redemption. It contained a further provision that if there was default in payment of the mortgage money as stipulated in the deed, the transaction should be regarded as an absolute sale. We may immediately remark that this operated as a clog and this clause will be of no effect. As a matter of fact counsel on both sides have proceeded on this basis. The mortgagee by a deed dated August 25, 1934, purported to sell absolutely the one acre of land covered by the earlier usufructuary mortgage to Ross. When it was conveyed, the property was described as vacant land and house site of the vendor. After the death of the purchaser Ross his executrix one Mr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »