Chennai Court December 1973 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.
S.M. Mohamed Ibrahim and Co. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: 1977(1)ELT156(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon persuing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P.M. Jumma Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner the Court made the following order:-2. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pudukottai, to renew its licence for the warehouse for the year 1973. The petitioner applied for the renewal of the licence on 29.11.1972. The first Respondent sent a communication dated 20.03.1973 calling upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements pointing out that certain properties given as security to the Department had been given as security to Canara Bank, Pudukottoi also, against the advance of any loan. The first Respondent wrote a subsequent letter date 3.4.1973 calling upon the partners to produce their solvency certificates in view of the fact that all the partners ...
Coimbatore Motor Transport Co-operative Society for Ex-servicemen Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ171
Veeraswami, C.J.1. Because a common point is involved, these appeals have been heard together.2. In W.A. No. 228 of 1970, the appellant was found guilty of overloading and the permit for his vehicle was suspended for a week. The overloading was discovered on 11th January, 1967, and the period of the permit expired on 30th April, 1967. On 1st May, 1967, the permit was renewed for five years. The suspension order was made on 27th December, 1967. The argument for the appellant, which did not succeed before the learned Judge and which is reiterated before us, is that the permit having expired on 30th April, 1967, suspension of the permit on the basis of the renewal was illegal. The appellant maintains that the renewed permit is a new one and, therefore, the penalty of suspension could not operate on it.3. V.C.K. Bus Service v. Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore : [1957]1SCR663 , held that when a permit has been renewed, it is not a new permit but is the old one, the period of its cur...
State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Kanyakumari Vs. Charl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ122
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff, State of Madras represented by the Collector of Kanyakumari, in O.S.No. 4 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Judge,. Kanyakumari, is the appellant herein. The suit property originally belonged to one Kendiran Konikkaran whose heirs conveyed the same to the respondent-defendant's grand-mother by a sale deed of the year 195o M.E. (1874 A.D.) and the respondent had succeeded to the suit property as heir to his grand-mother. Originally, the respondent instituted a suit in the District Court, Nagarcoil, which was numbered as O.S. No. 51 of 1957 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagarcoil praying for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Madras, the appellant herein, from interfering with his possession thereof. The District Court of Kanyakumari which included the Sub-Court at Nagarcoil was within the quondam State of Travancore-Cochin. He filed the suit as aforesaid by valuing...
Annapoorani Aramal Vs. Jayavelu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ285
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The first respondent in I.A. No. 206 of 1972 in O.S. No. 74 of 1971 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai is the appellant.2. The appellant originally instituted a suit on 24th June, 1968 for partition against her son, the first respondent herein on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The said suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai on 24th August, 1970. During the pendency of the suit and before it was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai the first respondent alienated three items of the suit property in favour of one Poorani Ammal. On 28th June, 1971 a preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit. After the passing of the preliminary decree i.e., on 10th February, 1972 the said Poorani Animal sold the three items of property purchased by her from the first respondent to the second respondent. Thereafter the second respondent filed a petition I.A. No. 206 ...
T. Durairajan Vs. Sri Kasi Viswanathaswamy temple (Tawker's Charities) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1973
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ323
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The second claimant in a reference made to the City Civil Court, Madras under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is the appellant. On 34th April, 1963 a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the State Government to acquire an extent of about 140 grounds comprised in Survey Nos. 25/3 and 25/4 of Chinna Chembarambakkam and T.S. No. 1/2 of Ayanavaram for the public purpose of construction of a terminal station and depot for the Madras State Transport Department. The land belonged to Sri Kasi Viswanathaswami Temple administered by a body of trustees compendiously known as Tawker's Charities. The present appellant claims to be a lessee in respect of those lands. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 8,18,041.03 and on appeal to the civil Court it was enhanced to Rs. 9,04,769.81 But, as the Land Acquisition Officer could not determine the quantity and qua...
N.D. Kunjappa Vs. M.R.V. Guru Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ93
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals under the Letters Patent are against the judgment of Alagiriswami, J., in Second Appeal No. 1776 of 1964. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 83 of 1969, while the defendant in the suit is the appellant in L.P-A. No. 34 of 1969. The suit out of which these Letters Patent Appeals arise is one for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of a land measuring seven grounds in extent situate in the estate known as Puliyur Shrothriyam. It was a ryoti land and one Abdul Azeez was the ryot. He was in arrears of payment of rent due to the then landholder of the estate in which the land was situated and for the said arrears, the land had been sold under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That sale was as early as 1936. The landholder had himself purchased the holding in the said sale. Later, the landholder as the purchaser of the land had sold the same to a third party and ...
Khader Khan Sahib Vs. Doraiswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad371
1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant before us. The question that arises in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated by the first defendant under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The suit property originally belonged to one Rahmat Bee. She had mortgaged the same to one Abdul Azeez under the deed dated 5-7-1946. One Perumal Udayar, a simple money creditor of Rahamat Bee as well as her husband obtained a decree in O. S.No.520 of 1952 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Namakkal and brought the suit property to sale subject to the above said mortgage in favour of Abdul Azeez. In the court auction sale held the first defendant in the present suit, out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises, purchased the property subject to the mortgage in favour of Abdul Azeez dated 5-7-1946. The said Abdul Azeez brought a suit on his mortgage in O. S. No.315 of 1958 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Namakkal, impleading the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›