Chennai Court September 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.
R. Nanjundeswaran Vs. the Sub-collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ1
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P. No. 3452 of 1971 on the file of this Court is the appellant herein. Consequent upon the resignation of the post of permanent Karnam of Thekkampatti Village by the then Karnam, the appellant herein was temporarily appointed to that post until the vacancy was permanently filled up. The vacancy arose on 6th November, 1970, and the appellant was appointed temporarily soon thereafter. On 20th November, 1970, certain Rules railed the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 were made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and they were published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 16th December, 1970. Rule 18 of those Rules is the relevant rule. That Rule as originally promulgated stood as follows:Nothing contained in these rules shall apply to persons, who, on the date of coming into force of these rules, are holding the posts of village headman or additional village headman, village karnam or additional vi...
Saraswathi Sriraman and Anr. Vs. Pappi Chetty Raghaviah Chetti's Chari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad144
ORDER1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent is a Charity and it applied for additional accommodation of the premises occupied by the petitioners under Section 10(2)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1970. Various legal contentions were raised by Mr. R. S. Venkatachari, the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants. He submitted that one of the sons of the sons of the original tenant, Sri Raman, who died in 1960 is in the Air Force and as such he belongs to the essential service, and could not be evicted. He relied on the definition of the word 'tenant' in Section 2(8) which includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant, and submits that the clause 'who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant' would qualify only ...
Manicka Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Munilakshmammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad157
1. This appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 29 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput, against the order passed in I. A. 73 of 1969 by the Subordinate Judge appointing a Commissioner for making enquire regarding the quantum of mesne profits payable by defendants 1 to 3.2. The plaintiff who is the respondent herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share in the suit properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 14-3-1962 declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/6th share in the suit properties. Clause 6 of the preliminary decree inter alia provided that the plaintiff's share in future mesne profits would be determined in the final decree proceedings. A final decree was passed on 28-2-1964. Clause 12 of the said decree provided that the question of mesne profits is left to be decided in a separate proceedings while the other matters provided under the preliminary decree were settled under the final decree.3. The plainti...
Saraswathi Sriraman and Anr. Vs. Pappi Chetty Raghaviah Chetty's Chari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ515
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondent is a Charity and it applied for additional accommopation of the premises occupied by the petitioners under Section 10(3)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Various legal contentions were raised by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants. He submitted that one of the sons of the original tenant Sri Raman who died in i960 is in the Air Force and as such he belongs to as essential service, and could not be evicted. He relied on the definition of the word 'tenant' in Section 2(8) which includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant, and submits that the clause 'who had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family upto the death of the tenant' would qualify only...
Madhi HussaIn Khan Ashurkhana Endowments and anr. Vs. Manivanna Naicke ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad145
1. The plaintiff, which is a Wakf represented by its mutavallis, is the appellant. The suit was for eviction of the first defendant from the suit property, namely, land and premises bearing door No. 134-A Peters Road, Royapettah, Madras. There is no dispute now that the first defendant is a tenant of the land, and he had put up the superstructure thereon. There is also no dispute as to the validity of the tenancy in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant is the State Wakf Board. After issuing the prescribed notice, the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction. The first defendant claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, as amended in 1955. He also filed an application under Section 9 for purpose of the land.2. The only point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether, in respect of a land which belongs to a wakf, a tenant could invoke the provisions of Section 9. The learned counsel for the appe...
Madhi HussaIn Khan Ashurkhana Endowments, Represented by Mutavallis an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ74
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff, which is a wakf represented by its Mutavallis, is the appellant. The suit was filed for eviction of the first defendant from the suit property, namely, land and premises bearing door number 134 -A, Peters Road, Royapettah, Madras There is no dispute now that the first defendant is a tenant of the land, and he had put up the superstructure thereon. There is also no dispute as to the validity of the tenancy in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant is the State Wakf Board. After issuing the prescribed notice, the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction. The first defendant claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, as amended in 1955. He also filed an application under Section 9 for purchase of the land.2. The only point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is as to whether, in respect of a land which belongs to a wakf, a tenant could invoke the provisions of Section 9. The l...
Sreenivas and Company and Zubaida Leather Company and ors. Vs. Union o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ173
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Three firms named Messrs. Srinivas and Company, M/s. Zubaida Leather Company and M/s. Farida Prima Tannery, who are doing the business of exporters in tanned sheep skin, have filed these petitions, each firm separately with regard to its own transactions. In respect of certain exports, the respective firms either directly or through its agent, filed the concerned shipping bill and other documents before the customs officials. The Assistant Collector of Customs, on an examination of the relevant documents, came to the conclusion that the goods were actually bought only by M/s. Bevingtons and Sons, London, and not by M/s. Zentral Kommerz, GmbH Berlin, as stated in the respective declarations and that the payment ought to be in sterling 'pounds' and not in terms of rupees as stated in the original G.R.I. form filed in the Customs House and that these statements were mis-declarations contravening the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›