Chennai Court March 1972 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.
P. Narayana Rao Vs. the Accommodation Controller, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad292
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 6 Peddu Naicken St. Kondithope, Madras. A part of it was in the occupation of the petitioner for non-residential purposes and the remaining portion had been let out to one Parthasarathi Chetti. Though the tenant vacated the building in January, 1966, the petitioner did not give notice of vacancy and thereupon action was taken against him by the Accommodation Controller. The petitioner contended that, inasmuch as he was in occupation of a portion of the building, he was not bound to give notice and that the building did not come within the purview of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by reason of Section 3(10)(c) of the Act. The Accommodation Controller rejected this contention and issued a notice to the petitioner on 3-7-1970 stating that, if he failed to surrender possession, possession would be taken under Section 3(9) of the Act. It is to quash that order, W. P. No. 2258 of...
T.S. Santhanam Vs. Expenditure Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR582(Mad)
Zoramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued by the respondent under Section 15(4) read with Section 16 of the Expenditure-tax Act, 1957, and seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the respondent from making a revised assessment on the petitioner. The petitioner and his four sons constitute a joint Hindu family. There was a partition in the family in June, 1957. After the partition, the petitioner claims that he has been returning his income and his wealth as an individual and was assessed as such. He performed his daughter's marriage on September 2, 1960, and spent a sum of Rs. 25,631 in connection with it. In addition to such an expenditure incurred by him, his four sons spent from the assets allotted to them a total sum of Rs. 61,292 for the said marriage. During the assessment proceedings under the Expenditure-tax Act, the petitioner's case is that every available material was placed before the assessing officer and it was contended that only a sum of Rs...
P. Narayana Rao Vs. the Accommodation Controller and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ334
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 6, Peddu Naicken Street, Kondithope, Madras. A part of it was in the occupation of the petitioner for non-residential purposes and the remaining portion had been let out to one Parthasaratihy Chetty. Though the tenant vacated the building in January, 1966 the petitioner did not give notice of vacancy and thereupon action was taken against him by the Accommodation Controller. The petitioner contended that, inasmuch as he was in occupation of a portion of the building, he was not bound to give notice and that the building did not come within the purview of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by reason of Section 3(10)(c) of the Act. The Accommodation Controller rejected this contention and issued a notice to the petitioner on 3rd July, 1970 stating that, if he failed to surrender possession, possession would be taken under Section 3(9) of the Act. It is to qua...
P.V. Krishnaiar and anr. Vs. Perumal Nadar Through His Power Agent S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ435
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendants are the appellants.1. The respondent herein filed a Suit substantially for three reliefs:(1) for a declaration that the lane marked C D E F in the plaint plan is his exclusive property and for possession;(2) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to drain water from his tiled roof situate on the eastern side of the lane, and also to have a free flow of light and air through the windows that exist on his western wall shown as G.F. in the plaint plan, and, (3) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the lane south of the line A.F. and also from letting in their sullage water in a gutter situate in that lane.2. The suit was resisted by defendants contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the lane marked G D E F, that the said lane belonged to them exclusively, that the plaintiff as no easementary right over that lane, and that the lane south of the line A.F. is not ...
The Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Fi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ226
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The controversy in this appeal filed, by the Union against the judgment of Alagiriswamy, J, is as to whether the respondent for the period of his residence at Uganda was entitled to be paid pension at 1 shilling 9 pence according to him, or at 1 shilling 6 pence per rupee as contended by the appellant. The respondent is a Ceylonese national, and joined the Indian Civil Service on 6th October, 1933. After the transfer of power on 15th August, 1947 he was retained in service and continued to serve until his retirement on 31st December, 1949 under the terms of the (Viceroy's announcement of 1947. Since then he took up residence in Ceylon, but between March, 1963 and October, 1969, he resided at Uganda, in East Africa. At his retirement he was sanctioned an annuity of 743, 2, shillings 6 pence per annum. He commuted a part of his pension amounting to Rs. 315-11-0 per mensem leaving a balance of Rs. 500 per mensem which he was drawing as appears from a letter of the Ac...
The Melur Co-operative Marketing Society, Represented by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ406
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 335 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit properties consisting of three items of wet lands belonged to the first defendant, Nainammal. The first defendant has three sons and they are Masthan (the second defendant), Manian and minor Mohammed Uthrif. Though her sons had no title to the properties, a sale-deed was written on 18th March, 1955 (Exhibit A-1) in which the vendors were the first defendant and her three sons, the first defendant acting for herself and as guardian of the said minor. But the document was signed only by the first defendant for herself and as guardian for her minor son and the second defendant. The sale was for Rs. 2,450. The document inter alia recited that the Vendors had received Rs. 530 on the date of the execution of the sale deed and that the balance of the consideration, namely, Rs. 1,900 would be received in the presence of the Sub-Registra...
Harakchand Roopchand Vs. Sukraj Devajes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad41
Palaniswamy, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 1218 of 1961 on the file of the City Civil Court. Madras, is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs. 7,620/- made up of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- said to have been given as a hand-loan to the defendant and interest thereon at twelve percent per annum. The defendant denied the loan. When the suit came up for trial the plaintiff challenged the defendant to take a special oath in a Jain temple by touching the God denying the loan. The defendant accepted the challenge. Both parties made an endorsement on the plaint to that effect. Subsequently the plaintiff took out I. A. No. 3418 of 1968 praying for permission to resile from the challenge. In the affidavit that was filed in support of the application, it was alleged that the Jain guru and certain other members of the community had found fault with the plaintiff for having made the challenge, that there will be displeasure of God if the oath was administered and ...
In Re: Meenakshi Achi and ors. (Accused Nos. 1 to 3)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ356
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first petitioner is the proprietor of an ice-cream company at Madurai. The second petitioner is her Manager and the third petitioner is a vendor employed in this concern. P.W. 1 the Food Inspector, attached to the Madurai Municipality, purchased on 16.7.1969 fifteen cups of ice-cream from the third petitioner in the presence of the second petitioner for Rs. 7-50 as per receipt Ex. P. 1. He divided the ice-cream into three parts and packed them in three different bottles. He added 24 drops of formalin in each bottle, handed over one to the vendor, retained one with him and then sent the third to the Public Analyst. On analysis the latter found that the sample analysed contained only 1.9 Per cent of fat as against 10 per cent prescribed under the Rules and that it did not contain any fruit or nut. Complaint was then filed against these three petitioners for an offence under Section 2 (1)(b) read with Section 7(1) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›