Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad250; (1973)1MLJ244
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the order of the District Munsif of Pudukottai in I. A. No. 273 of 1970 declining to extend the time for payment of costs, which was confirmed by the appellate court in C. M. A. 10 of 1970.2. The suit was dismissed for default and the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 273 of 1970 on 7-7-1970 for restoration of the suit. On 22-7-1970, the petition was allowed on condition that a sum of Rs. 2 to each of the defendant should be paid on or before 3-8-1970 failing which the petition was ordered to be dismissed and the I. A. to be posted on 4-8-1970, for final orders. The cost as directed was not paid on 3-8-1970 but was tendered only on 4-8-1970 along with a petition requesting the court to extent the time for one day. The Courts below held that the order has worked itself out and the condition not having been fulfilled the action was dead and, therefore, after that date there can be no application for extending the time. The Court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad323; (1973)1MLJ252
1. The second appeal is by the plaintiffs. In Ulandai village in North Arcot, Dt., there was an ancient temple called Sri Kariamanicka Perumal temple. It fell into ruins. The daily worship was not performed. It appears that, when His Holiness Sri Sankaracharaya of Kamakoti Peetam visited the village before 1960, he suggested that the temple had fallen on evil days because it was situated behind the row of houses forming the Agraharam and that it would be better to build a temple in front of the Agraharam. Accordingly public subscriptions were raised and a new temple was built facing the Agraharam. The Kumbbabhishekam was performed in 1963 as per the invitation, Ext. A-3. The Moolavar (deity) at the site of the old temple could not be traced, but the Utsavar (who comes out) was available and the Utsavar was installed in the new temple. Some stones of the old temple were utilized for the construction of the new temple. Some copper plates were also utilized.2. At the time of the formation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad350; (1973)1MLJ205
ORDER1. The petitioner was the respondent in an appeal filed by the respondent in this civil revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal related to the grant renewal of a stage carriage permit for the bus MDS 4009 (Since replaced by MDU 8715) in respect of the route Kambainallur to Hogainaikkal via Dharmapuri for a period of five year form 9-6-1971. The respondent herein had also applied for grant of a stage carriage permit to him to ply on the same route. The relevant dates may now be noticed. The normal permit of the petitioner was to expire on 9-6-1971. He made an application for renewal on 9-2-1971. Representations were called for under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act on 5-4-1971, and the last date for filing such representations was fixed at 30-4-1971. The Respondent herein sent his representations on 28-4-1971, and also made a counter application for the grant of the permit in his favor which was also notified in the u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad346
Raghavan, J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed by defendants 30 to 33 with the leave of Srinivasan, J., in S. A. 231 of 1963. The suit is for partition, possession and future mesne profits. The suit properties belonged to three brothers, Chandamiyan Sahib (died in 1940), Amir Sahib (died in 1927) and Shamshuddin Sahib (died in 1943). It is not in dispute that these brothers or their legal representatives were entitled each to one-third share in the suit properties as on the date of the death of Shamsuddin in 1943. The properties had originally been sold in Court auction under a mortgage decree, but they had already been purchased in 1925 in the name of Rahima Bi, wife of one of the brothers, Chandamiyan Sahib. In 1929 Shamshuddin (one of the brothers) executed a mortgage over the properties thereby showing that the purchase in 1925 was on behalf of the family. In respect of the arrears due to the Municipality the properties were brought to sale, and were purchased by the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]33STC170(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on a taxable turnover of Rs. 6,17,187.24 for the year 1961-62. Before the assessing authority, the appellant claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 6,29,382.69 on the ground that the said sum represented second sales of fertilisers. The assessing authority, however, accepted the appellant's claim for exemption only in respect of a turnover of Rs. 5,58,479 and rejected the claim for exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 70,903.69 on the ground that the said turnover has not been shown to be second sales of fertilisers. The appellant aggrieved against the said order of assessment so far as it related to the rejection of its claim for exemption on the said sum of Rs. 70,000 and odd, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority considered the question of exemption as regards the said sum of Rs. 70,903.69 and held that though the appellant has not maintained separate accou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ27
Raghavan, J.1. This Is a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the respondent in G. O. Ms. 1800 Finance (Raffle) dated 23-12-1971. Prior to the impugned order the respondent passed G. O. Ms. 1589 Finance (Raffle) dated 8-11-1971, prohibiting the sale within the State of Tamil Nadu of all Government raffle tickets of States other than those of the Government of Tamil Nadu notwithstanding the reciprocal arrangements entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu with the other States. The impugned order prohibited, on and from 1-1-1972 the sale within the State of Tamil Nadu of all Raffle tickets of the other States. The questions raised in the writ petition are whether the respondent. Tamil Nadu Government has power or authority to ban the sale in the Tamil Nadu of tickets of State lotteries organised and conducted by the other States in the Union of India and whether the ban order is ultra vires.2. The petitioner is carrying on business, in Madras, in the purchase and sale of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad39
ORDER1. This is an appeal against the order of remand made by the Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit (O.S. No. 3216 of 1968) was tried by an Assistant Judge of the Court. It was for the refund of a sum of Rupees 5,000. The defendant (Madras State Small Industries Corporation Ltd.) had invited tenders for the removal of (i) zinc dross, and (ii) zinc ash at Mettur Dam. The plaintiff made a tender and a deposit in accordance with the tender notice. Later the parties broke out and the plaintiff called upon the defendant to return the deposit. The defendant, however, contended that the plaintiff had committed breach of the contract and that the defendant was entitled to forfeit the amount clause 9 of the notice inviting tenders. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit.2. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff had not committed breach of the contract, but, on the other hand, was willing to perform the contract and that, consequently, the defendant was not ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad352; (1973)1MLJ282
ORDER1. The defendant is the petitioner herein. The revision petition arises out of proceedings seeking to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him in O.S No. 414 of 1963 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.2. The petitioner's contention is that he is a defendant in O.S No.414 of 1963, that the respondent filed the suit on an alleged promissory note dated 23-12-1960, that he did not execute the promissory note, that he did not receive any money thereunder, that the respondent obtained an ex parte decree on 7-1-1964, without his knowledge of the suit, that he had knowledge of the suit only on 24-8-1969, when a process was served on him from District Munsif's court. Kuzhithurai, in the execution proceedings, that he did not receive that suit summons, that he did not refuse to receive the suit summons, that the endorsement of the post man on the letter enclosing the suit summons that the defendant refused to receive summons is false, that there is no prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad251; [1973]43CompCas232(Mad)
1. Second and third defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,000, due under a promissory note dated 12-8-1960. The promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant Rajagopal Transports Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on 7-4-1959 with the 1st defendant on 7-4-1959 with the 1st defendant and his two wives as its only shareholders. The 1st defendant by a resolution dated 8-4-1959 was appointed as the Managing Director of the company. The suit promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant on 12-8-1960 and he described himself as the proprietor of Sri Rajagopal Transports. Subsequently on 29-7-1961 all the shares of the company were transferred in the name of the 2nd defendant and his son Rajaram. It was the case of the plaintiff that the money was borrowed by the 1st defendant for the purchase of a bus for the company and that when the shares were transferred to the 2nd defendant the 2nd defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)1MLJ209
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand made by the Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit (O.S. No. 3216 of 1968) was tried by an Assistant Judge of the Court. It was for the refund of a sum of Rs. 5,000. The defendant (Madras State Small Industries Corporation Ltd.) had invited tenders for the removal of (i) zinc dross, and (it) zinc ash at Mettur Dam. The plaintiff made a tender and a deposit in accordance with the tender notice. Later the parties broke out and the plaintiff called upon the defendant to return the deposit. The defendant, however, contended that the plaintiff had committed breach of the contract and that the defendant was entitled to forfeit the amount under Clause 9 of the notice inviting tenders. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit.2. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff had not committed breach of the contract, but, on the other hand, was willing to perform the contract and that, consequently, the de...
Tag this Judgment!