Chennai Court September 1971 Judgments
Viswasam and ors. Vs. E. Ramachandran Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad221
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram (District Judge), dismissing the appellants' application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of Rupees 10,000, in respect of the death of their mother, Savari Ammal, who sustained injuries in the course of a motor accident, which took place on 15-3-1967. at 11-30 p.m. at Sttur, as a result of whiich she died on 17-3-1967. According to the appellants, while the deceased Savari Ammal was going along the western side of the railway feeder road, Sattur in a northerly direction at about 11-30 p.m. on the date in question, a taxi bearing No. MDR 4696, belonging to the first respondent Ramachandran Nadar and insured with the second respondent, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., came in a southerly direction in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down Savari Ammal, Respondent 1 and 2 in their counters denied that the car was driven in a rash or negligent manner and averred tha...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shanmugam Vs. the Secretary, Co-operative Fire and General Insuranc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ134
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. These are connected cases. Both are against the order passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, in Co-operative Appeal No. 9 of 1969. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 820 of 1970 entered service in 1941 as the Manager of the Co-operative Fire and General Insurance Society Ltd., Madras. Later he became the Secretary of the said society. In November, 1962 certain charges were framed against him and he was placed under suspension on 17th December, 1962. On 31st March, 1964, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. On 16th March, 1964 the Society issued a notice retiring the petitioner on his attaining the age of 55. Even after the petitioner was retired from service, the Society proposed to proceed with the enquiry with regard to the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed O. Section No. 1152 of 1966, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for a permanent injunction restraining the Society from proceeding with the e...
Tag this Judgment!M. Balasubramaniam Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR623(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the village munsif of Koottathupatti in Salem District. He claims that on March 24, 1960, there was a partition of the family properties between himself and his minor sons, as also the mother of the petitioner and the brother's widow of the petitioner. The family property was admittedly subject to agricultural income-tax. We are concerned in this case with the assessment year 1963-64. Notwithstanding the alleged partition as above, the assessee was filing applications for composition for the prior assessment years including the entire extent of the family properties without noticing the partition, or giving effect to it. But, for the year 1963-64, he filed an application for composition under Section 65 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, stating that there was a partition between himself and his minor sons and others and by reason of such partition, the composition he was seeking for was to be limited to his aliquot share of the fam...
Tag this Judgment!Pattu Iyer and anr. Vs. Arunachala Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1971
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ77
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 382 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram are the appellants. They filed the suit for recovery of possession of their 1/3rd. share in the suit properties bearing T. S. No. 1388/2 situate in Thirumanjana Street, Thiruvilandur, Mayuram Town, as well as for past and future rents. Both the Courts below had held that they are not entitled to seek recovery of possession of the property but they are entitled to claim only arrears of rent. The plaintiffs canvass the correctness of the decisions of the Courts below in this second appeal. Both the Courts below have given different reasons for their decision. The trial Court held that the defendant, having taken on lease a vacant site and having erected a building thereon is entitled to the protection of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960) in view of the decision of this Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Babu Sahib : (1964)1MLJ110 . The lower appellate Court, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Sethu Parvathy Ammal Vs. Bajji K. Srinivasan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad222
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 53 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court is the appellant before this court. She instituted the suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain immovable property under Ex. A-1 dated 10-2-1965. That agreement was executed by the first defendant on behalf of himself and as guardian of his minor children, defendants 2 to 4 agreeing to sell the property to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. The agreement itself recites that out of the consideration of Rs. 10,000, Rs. 4000 had already been accounted for, by payment of Rs. 2698-10 to the Nicholson Town Bank Ltd., Thanjavur, on behalf of the first defendant, a sum of Rs. 500 to one Chakrapani Iyer on account of the first defendant and the balance of Rs. 801-90 received by the first defendant by then. Ex. A-1 agreement contemplates the mother of the first defendant Sonna Amma...
Tag this Judgment!Singam Chetty Ateendrooloo Chetty Charities Vs. Additional Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1971
Reported in: [1972]86ITR262(Mad)
VEERASWAMI C.J. - The assessment orders were made as early as February 25, 1970, and it is to quash those orders the petitions have been filed under article 226 of the Constitution. It is not denied that appeals and further appeals lay against the orders and the Act also provides for a reference to this court if the assessee felt aggrieved by the Tribunals orders on a question of law arising out of the orders. But, the assessee took the risk of by passing these remedies and went to the Commissioner against the assessment orders. The question is not whether that procedure was correct so far as the assessee was concerned. Nor is it the question whether the writ petitions can be entertained against the orders of the Commissioner. The point is whether the assessee can be allowed to bypass the scheme of remedies against the assessment orders provided by the Act and be allowed to move this court straightway under article 226 of the Constitution against the orders of assessment themselves. We...
Tag this Judgment!Jegannatham Pillai Vs. Kunjithapatham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad390
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellant Jagannatham Pillai sued to recover possession of the suit properties as reversioner to the estate of one Sivachidambaram Pillai, who died issueless on 17-1-1904, leaving his young widow Valambal as his only heir under the Hindu law. Valambal claimed in O.P. 506 of 1912 on the file of the District Court, Thanjavur, for letters of administration of the estate of her husband Sivachidambaram Pillai relying on a will alleged to have been executed by him on 17-1-1904, but really dated 18-1-1904. The appellant's father Nataraja as the nearest reversioner contested the claim of Valambal on the ground that the said will was not genuine and his plea was upheld and the Letters of Administration were refused. On 29-5-1919 Valambal executed a settlement deed, the original of Ex. A. 5, in respect of almost all the suit properties in favour of her younger brother Souriraja Pillai, the second defendant in the suit.On 19-3-1959 Valambal obtained a settlement deed under the ori...
Tag this Judgment!The Vellore Shrof Kumarswami Chetti Choultry Vs. Veerasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad303
ORDER1. The petitioner, the Vellore Shrof Kumarswami Chetty Choultry by Executive Trustee, Sri V. K. Kannappa Chettiar seeks to revise the decree and order of the District Judge in C.R.P. No. 16 of 1968 on his file, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, on the ground of sub-letting.2. The petitioner and the respondent entered into the lease Ex. A-1, for the respondent carrying on a laundry business in the leasehold premises. The petitioner came forward with the case that the respondent-tenant sublet the premises to one Mani for running a tea shop. The respondent denied sub-letting and stated that as the income from his laundry business was not sufficient for the maintenance of his increasing family, he started the tea shop agreeing to pay additional rent. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in this case, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have in detailed and well-considered orders acc...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Benson (India) Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC228(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the question involved is a simple one and I shall state briefly the facts. The petitioner, which claims to be an advertising agent, its work consisting of rendering service to various persons on being appointed as their advertising consultants, says that it is not a dealer within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It would appear, however, that the petitioner voluntarily submitted returns for the years commencing from 1961-62 and ending with 1965-66. The petitioner was assessed on its own returns. It appears, that for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 the petitioner filed appeals questioning the assessments both on the ground that it was not a dealer and also on the ground that the assessment orders were wrong in other particulars. But, for the years commencing from 1963-64 and ending with 1965-66, the petitioner had not even filed appeals before the appellate authority and t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rayappa Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1226
Venkataraman, J.1 This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Salem convicting the appellant Rayappa Asari for the murder of his concubine Karnala alias Venkatammal and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The murder is said to have been committed about 3 a. m. on the night of 30/31-1-1970 at Avuthipalayam by the appellant stabbing her with a bichuva knife on her throat, neck etc. The evidence against the appellant. is purely circumstantial, but: in our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and the only reasonable inference from the evidence is that it was the appellant who committed the murder. In the first place. there is evidence that the appellant and the deceased Kamala lived in the house of P. W. 7 at Kannankurichi. part of Salem. and that they used to quarrel. That was about nine months prior to the occurrence and the period of their stay was for about a year P. W. 7 began his evidence by saying that they were alto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »