Chennai Court February 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.
Rajappan Vs. Natesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad469; (1973)2MLJ107
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against an order of remand. The suit was for declaration of title and injunction or in the alternative for declaration and possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal filed by the plaintiff by his power of attorney agent, the learned Subordinate Judge remanded the suit. The main basis for the remand was that an additional document was filed at the appellate stage. This was a copy of a mortgage deed of 1928. In the plaint itself, it was stated that in that mortgage of 1928 the property involved in the present suit was also one of the items which were mortgaged. That was relied upon as a piece of evidence to show that the plaintiff had title to the property in 1928 and that he was in possession. Under these circumstances, one would have expected him to have filed a registration copy of this mortgage deed in the trial Court itself and adduce necessary evidence to show that the suit property was also one of the items mortgaged....
K.S. Velayutha Nadar Vs. South India Tobacco Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC202(Mad)
ORDERKailasam, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner. This petition is filed against the order of the court below directing reception of certain documents that have been produced by the sales tax department in evidence. The documents that were summoned and directed to be received in evidence are documents Nos. 1 to 6 described in the application, I. A. No. 469 of 1972 filed by the plaintiff. The plea taken by the defendant is that these documents are privileged documents under Section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and, therefore, they cannot be marked in evidence. Section 57(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act runs thus :57. (1) All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts, registers, records or documents produced under the provisions of this Act or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made, in the course of any proceeding under this Act or in any record of any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand, prepared for th...
Sri Simanlal B. Mehta Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ418
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. These three writ appeals arise out of three connected writ petitions viz., W.P. No. 2193 of 1967, W.P. No. 2194 of 1967 and W.P. No. 2195 of 1967. W.P. No. 2193 of 1967 is to quash the adjudication order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 2nd September, 1964 confirmed by the appellate order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 18th August, 1966 and further confirmed in the revision petition by the Union of India by its order, dated 10th May, 1967 confiscating 2,657 diamond pieces weighing 228.51 carats seized from the appellant's premises on 23rd August, 1961 on the ground of illegal importation in contravention of Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section 3 (2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. W.P. No. 2194 of 1967 is filed to .quash the search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in his D.Dis. 5870/11 dated 23rd August, 1961 under Section 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, authori...
K. Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. P. Ponnyan Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad33
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 4852 as damages, caused by the defendant to the plaintiff's lorry. The defendant was found by both the Courts below guilty of wilfully cutting the five tyres of the lorry and breaking three headlights, two parking head lights, wind screen glass and the rear light of the plaintiff's lorry. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued against this finding, it being a question of fact I am unable to interfere with that finding. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3100 for replacement of the five tyres and Rs. 1742, for damages caused to the lights and wind screen. There is no dispute in this second appeal relating to the damages allowed for the lights and the wind screen. It is in evidence that the tyres which were cut by the defendant were not new tyres, but at the time of damages their buttons were almost half worn out. It is also in evidence that the damages caused to the tyres are ...
K. Ramakrishna Pillai Vs. P. Ponnayyan Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ378
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,852 damages, caused by the defendant to till plaintiff's lorry. The defendant was found by both the Courts below guilty of wilfully cutting the five tyres of the lorry and breaking three head-lights, two parking head-lights, wind screen glass and the rear light of the plaintiff's lorry. Though the learned Counsel for the appellant argued against this finding, it being a question of fact I am unable to interfere with that finding. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 3,100 for replacement of the five tyres and Rs. 1 ,742 for damages caused to the lights and wind screen. There is no dispute in this second appeal relating to the damages allowed for the lights and the wind screen. It is in evidence that the tyres which were cut by the defendant were not new tyres, but at the time of damages their buttons were almost half worn out. It is also in evidence that the damages caused to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›