Chennai Court April 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.
Jayadambal and ors. Vs. the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Thanjavur, Now ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ250
N. S. Ramaswami, J.1. This writ appeal is against the judgment of Veeraswami, J. (as he then was) dismissing W.P. No. 133 of 1961. The writ was for certiorari to quash the order passed under Section 13 of Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948). The land in dispute is admittedly within an estate which had been taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act. The contesting respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the said Act for a patta for the land on the ground that it was pannai land. Swaminathan Vanniar, whose legal representatives are the appellants before us, contested that petition before the Assistant Settlement Officer, contending that the land was ryoti land, that he was a ryot entitled to a patta in respect of that land and that the petition under Section 13 of the said Act for the grant of patta on the ground that it was private land should not be allowed. The Assistant Settlement Officer, after enquiry, came to the co...
K.A. Kannappa Chetti Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ212
ORDER.In pursuance of the proviso to Clause (i) of Article 213 of the Constitution, the President approves the promulgation, by the Governor of Tamil Nadu of the Tamil Nadu Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1972.By order and in the name of the President.(Sd.) B. Shukla.'(Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.)The above is the first stage for the promulgation of the Ordinance . It may be seen that the President's assent under the Constitution is required in the following cases : (1) Article 31 (3) when a law referred to in Article 31 (2) has been reserved for consideration of the President; (2) Article 31-A first proviso, where a law falling under Article 31 -A relating to acquisition of estates is made by the Legislature of a State; (3) Under Article 254 (2) when there is an inconsistency between the laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of a State. The instructions under the proviso to Article 213 takes the place of the previous s...
South Arcot Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR469(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assesses-company was formerly carrying on the business of supplying electricity at various places in Madras State. The business was taken over by the Madras Electricity Board under the Madras Electricity Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1954, with effect from June 1, 1957. As from this date the assessee-company ceased its business of supplying electricity and did not derive any income from the business as such. The assessee's year of account is the calendar year. During the periods relevant to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1962-63, the income derived by the company consisted of interest from fixed deposits from bank, interest paid by the Government on the compensation amount payable by the Government for taking over the assets of the company, and share transfer fees. This income was assessed under the head ' Income from other sources '. The Income so assessed for the several years in question is as under :1959-60 Rs. 34,2451960-61 Rs. 15,1201961-62 Rs. 40,5171962-63 ...
M.S. Mylswamy Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC151(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question involved in both these cases is the same and therefore they are dealt with together. The assessee is the same in both the cases. The first case relates to the assessment year 1963-64 and the second case relates to the assessment year 1964-65. The transactions involved are identical. The assessee entered into a contract with the public works department to supply sand at the rate of Rs. 75 per 100 c. ft. The total amounts received by the assessee in the two years in question towards the supply of sand from the public works department have been assessed to sales tax on the basis that there has been a sale of sand by the assessee to the department. The assessee contended right through that the supply of sand was execution of a works contract and that there is no sale of sand as such in the transactions involved in these two cases. The sales tax authorities as well as the Tribunal held that a contract for sate of sand was entered into by the assessee with the d...
Ramachandran and anr. Vs. Rukmangadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad60
1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 60 of 1963 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge. Salem, are the appellants herein. There was one Venka-tarama Iyer, to whom the suit property belonged, and he had four sons, Narasim-ha Iyer. Nanna Iyer, Sundara Iyer and Sitarama Iyer. He obtained releases from two of his elder sons, Narasimha Iyer and Nanna Iyer, under Ex. B-21, dated 24-7-1908 and Ex. A-15 dated 12-7-1913 respectively. Afterwards, under Ex. A-1. dated 10-11-1918, he entered into an arrangement with his third son, Sundara Iyer, and fourth son, Sitarama Iyer. The terms of the agreement, as recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the correctness of which has not been challenged before us. is that Sundara Iyer should have a life estate in the suit properties without any power of alienation and he should live in the house and collect the rent and maintain himself, and the sons to be born to Sundara Iyer subsequent to Ex. A-1 have to get these properties absolutely. The plaintif...
C.K. Kuppuramulu Vs. A. Varadarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad479; (1973)2MLJ108
ORDER1. Defendant is the petitioner. The suit is to recover the amount due under the promissory note dated 25-7-1968 executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. The execution of the said promissory note is substantially admitted, but what is pleaded in the written statement is that by a subsequent agreement, the plaintiff undertook to account for the rents collected by him and also agreed to take into account the probable rent for the portion in his occupation, and if that is taken into account, nothing will be recoverable under the suit promissory note.2. The plaintiff and the defendant have married sisters and the wives of the plaintiff and defendant lost their mother while they were young. While the plaintiff's wife was very young the case of the defendant is, that the plaintiff's wife was brought up by the defendant's wife that for the marriage several presents were given by the defendant and his wife, that for the confinement of the plaintiff's wife defendant and his wife...
B.M. Kuppuswami Mudaliar, Partner, Venus Talkies, Korukkupet Vs. the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ51
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order, calling for the records relating to the order of the second respondent dated 22nd March, 1973 made in B.P.Rt. No. 1413 (L), confirming the order of the first respondent, viz., the Collector of Chingleput, dated 10th January, 1973 and quash the same.2. Under the impugned order, the Board of Revenue confirmed the grant of no-objection-certificate to the third respondent for locating a touring cinema, in the site chosen by the third respondent. The no-objection-certificate was granted originally by the Collector on 14th August, 1972. There was an appeal against that order to the Board of Revenue. By order dated 21st October, 1972, while holding that the touring cinema was not within the prohibited distance of one mile from the petitioner's permanent theatre, the Board set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter for a fresh disposal after considerin...
Periyammal and ors. Vs. Rukmani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad170
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit is for redemption. The suit hypotheca belonged to one Srinivasa Iyengar, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, who borrowed a sum of Rupees 1,000 under a usufructuary mortgage dated 9-5-1947 executed in favour of the first defendant and his wife, Kaliammal, the mother of defendants 2 and 3. The time for redemption was three years. Kaliammal died about 1963, and defendants 2 and 3 are her heirs. The fourth defendant claimed to be in possession of the mortgaged property under defendants 2 and 3. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 sold the properties to plaintiffs 3 to 7 under a registered sale deed dated 21-1-1966 and plaintiffs 3 to 7 are entitled to redemption. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have been joined to avoid any technical objection. According to the plaintiffs the amount due under the mortgage is only Rs. 375 as per the provisions of Section 9-A of Madras Act IV of 1938. The suit is laid for the redemption of the mortgage...
N.V. Mani Vs. G.T. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ20
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J. 1. In each of these two cases, the conductor of the bus concerned has been convicted for ah offence under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 49-YY (i) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners in both the cases first proceeded oh the assumption that Rule 49-YY (i) of the said rules has since been abrogated after the amendment of the Act in the year 1969. In Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the words ' to the maximum number of passengers and maximum Weight of luggage that may be carried AS the Vehicle ' have been inserted by the Amending Act LVI of 1969, Which Came into force on 27th March, 1970. The learned Counsel first proceeded on the basis that after the above said amendment of Section 123 of the Act, Rule 49-YY (i) stood abrogated. But that is not based on facts. The rule is still in force an...
C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder Vs. Aravagiri Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad239
Property - admission - Sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act, 1908 and Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - question for consideration is to what extant Section 49 prohibits reception of documents as evidence - Section 49 (a) provides that document required by Section 17 to be registered - section 49 (c) provides that unregistered document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting suit property - Section does not provide for total prohibition of reception of document as evidence at all - if document deals with more than one transaction and if principal transaction happens to be creation, declaration or extinguishments of any right or interest to or in immovable property as contemplated by Section 17 (1) (b) and if there is also transaction or purpose collateral to same, document can be used in evidence for purpose of showing collateral purpose or transaction thereto....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »