Chennai Court November 1973 Judgments
V. Srinivasan Vs. Rajalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad263
Maharajan, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the owner of a lorry against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, awarding as against him a compensation of Rs. 15,300, in respect of the death of one Venkatachala Iyer in a lorry accident, and exonerating the Insurer of all liability. The accident took place at about 8 a. m. on 6-6-1969 in the Kathivakkam High Road opposite to the Indian Oil Company depot near En-nore. Venkatachala Iyer was cycling along the north to south road in a southerly direction when lorry No. MDH 4939 belonging to the appellant, coming from the opposite direction, collided with his cycle and ran over him. The victim was killed on the spot. Ex. P-2 is the sketch drawn by the Inspector of Police, who took over the investigation soon after the accident. It shows that the highway is about 37 ft. 6 inches broad, the middle tarred portion being 17 ft. and the mud portion on one side being 9 ft. wide, and the mud portion, on the other, 11 ft. 6 inche...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojini Ammal Vs. K. Chelliah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ66
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Under an agreement dated 17th November, 1966, the petitioner and the first respondent agreed that the first respondent could enter upon her land of an extent of about 11 acres in Uthamapalayam, Madurai and that whilst she be enabled to raise coffee, orange, pomegranates etc., crops in the same land, the first respondent would equally be permitted to plant banana trees and enjoy the usufructs therefrom. It is also in the contemplation of parties what whilst the first respondent enters the land for purposes of enjoying the usufructs of the banana crop raised by him, he should not in any way disturb the other crops which the petitioner might raise in the very same land. Almost at the end of the period provided for under the arrangement as above, the first respondent apparently intended to get a permanent right in himself under the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act and with that object in view, he applied to the Record Officer, Periakulam requesting h...
Tag this Judgment!Lingasami Goundar Vs. S.K. Subramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ166
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The learned District Judge of Madurai was right when he allowed the application of the respondent under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, by permitting him to be adjudicated insolvent on his own petition, on the ground that he was unable to pay the debts of his creditors. The petitioner before me is one of his creditors. In a summary examination which the Court has to undertake under Section 24 of the Act, the trial Court, instead of limiting its enquiry to a prima facie examination of the ability of the respondent to pay his debts, made a detailed enquiry about his assets and liabilities, and came to the conclusion that the act of insolvency as set out by him had not been established. The appellate Court rightly posed itself the question whether the respondent was in a position to pay his debts, particularly a large decree debt due to the petitioner. It noticed several decisions of this and other Courts and was of the view that the enquiry unde...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankarachariar Swamigal Mutt Represented by Sri M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ153
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21st December, 1967 of the third respondent, as confirmed by the second respondent and the first respondent. The petitioner is Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Sankarachariar Swamigal Mutt represented by Sri Karyam and Agent. In the Audit Notes of the Mutt relating to the period from 1st January, 1966 to 31st March, 1966, the Assistant Examiner of Temple Accounts pointed out that the Manager of the Mutt had drawn travelling allowance in excess of the amount admissible under the Tamil Nadu Travelling Allowance Rules. In reply to this audit objection, the agent of the Mutt by his reply dated 10th November, 1967 stated that the rules framed under Section 116 (2) .(xxiii) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) were not applicable to the servants of the Mutt. The third respondent viz., the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu R...
Tag this Judgment!A. S. Muthiah and ors. Vs. Peter Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ404
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The legal representatives of the first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the appellants. The suit was for a declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties.2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Srinivasagam Pillai. He died in 1909 leaving a registered Will, dated 12th January, 1909. This Will was probated in O.P. No. 291 of 1909, on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli. As per the Will the suit properties should be enjoyed by the testator's daughter Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal and on her death they should be taken by her children, plaintiffs 1 to 4 being her sons and plaintiffs 5 and 6 being her daughters. Appellants 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff who died during the pendency of the first appeal. During the life-time of Kothai Grace Devadoss Ammal, she made several alienations in respect of the suit properties and ultimately the properties comprised in the eight schedules appe...
Tag this Judgment!K. E. M. Mohamed Ibrahim Marcan and anr. Vs. Perumal Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ507
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The defendant was a transport operator. He had two route permits covering Cuddalore to Ulundurpet and Cuddalore to Kachirapalayam, and was plying MDY 3870 and MDY 4396 respectively on the above routes. He sought financial assistance from the plaintiffs. After discussions the plaintiffs, under Exhibit A-1, dated 14th May, 1964, entered into a sale agreement in respect of the bus MDY 3870 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000. Under Exhibit A-1 it was agreed that the plaintiffs should take delivery of the bus from the defendant after paying the amounts due under hire purchase to one Srimathi Nani Kavar Bai. The defendant agreed to sign the necessary records for transferring the registration certificate of the vehicle and also seek for the transfer of the permit in favour of the plaintiffs. But immediately after entering into the agreement the plaintiffs understood that there was some dispute regarding the-route permit Cuddalore to U...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Ramalinga Nadar and anr. Vs. the Collector and Addl. District Mag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ1114
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These two writ petitions refer to the detention of C. H. Dhas and C. Wilson who are detained in the Central Jail, Palayamkottai respectively. Rama-linga Nadar and Jesudhas are the two petitioners praying for a direction from this Court that the two detenus may be released from detention.2. The Collector and Additional District Magistrate (J) of Kanyakumari District passed a composite order of detention of three persons Arthur Hendrose alias Manthri, C. H. Dhas alias K. C. Dhas alias Rajan and C. Wilson under Section 3 (2) (b) read with Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971). C. H. Dhas and C. Wilson were arrested and detained, but Arthur Hendrose is absconding and he is not yet apprehended.3. It emerges from the record that Arthur Hendrose and C H. Dhas are the sons of one Haridoss. C. Wilson is the brother of the abovesaid Haridoss.4. Arthur Hendrose is the owner of lorry KLV : 7153 styled as 'Adam', T. M...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Ramalinga Nadar and anr. Vs. the Collector and Additional Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ72
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These two writ petitions refer to the detention of C.H. Dhas and C. Wilson who are detained in the Central Jail, Palayamkottai respectively. Ramalinga Nadar and Jesudhas are the two petitioners praying for a direction from this Court that the two detenus may be released from detention.2. The Collector and Additional District Magistrate (I) of Kanyakurnari District passed a composite order of detention of three persons Arthur Hendrose alias Manthri, C.H. Dhas alias K.C. Dhas alias Rajan and C. Wilson under Section 3 (2) (b) read with Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act XXVI of 1971). C.H. Dhas and C. Wilson were arrested and detained, but Arthur Hendrose is absconding and he is not yet apprehended.3. It emerges from the record that Arthur Hendrose and C.H. Dhas are the sons of one Haridoss. C. Wilson is the brother of the said Haridoss.4. Arthur Hendrose is the owner of lorry KLV: 7153 styled as 'Adam', T.M.C. 9047 ...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Yaralagadda Venkanna Chaudary Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ75
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. Admittedly an extent of 9-72 acres of land belonged to the Secretary of State for India in Council and it was granted on lease in Form B of the Cantonment Code, 1899, under a lease deed dated 3rd August, 1901 in favour of one Malik Mohideen Hossain Khan Sahib son of Malik Mahomed Tecky Ali Khan Sahib, The petitioner herein claims to be an assignee of the interest of the lessee in respect of the land in question. The Government of India, in the Ministry of Defence, by an order dated 5th May, 1971 resumed the leasehold interest in respect of an extent of 5-32, acres of land under Condition XXVII of the lease and offered a sum of Rs. 507 as the value of the erections standing on the land. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this order of the Government of India.2. The principal question that is urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the lease dated 3rd August, 1901 resumption can be...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ65
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of the concurrent judgments of the District Munsif, Dharapuram in E.A. No. 282 of 1968 in E.P. No. 150 of 1966 in O.S. No. 374 of 1963 and also C.M.A. No. 41 of 1970 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore. Mr. T. P. Gopalakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that proper notice was not served in the Execution Petition on the appellant herein, and as such, any sale that is effected is void. On the very same point, Mr. T. P. Gopalakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued Palaniammal v. Valliammal and Ors. C.M.S.A. No. 101 of 1970 I remanded the said C.M.S.A. No. 101 of 1970 after allowing the same to the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore, for the purpose of disposing of the appeal on its merits bearing in mind the principles laid down in Parasuram Udayar v. Appadurai Chetty and Ors. 83 M.L.W. 137 : (1970) 2 M.L.J. 1 : L.R. 1970 Mad. 271 . After the remand, the learne...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »