Chennai Court January 1974 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mrs. Sarojini Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1974
Reported in: [1974]97ITR37(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The defendant who was unsuccessful in the court below is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for repaymentof a sum of Rs. 15,37096 from the appellant with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum. Her case was that immediately after her husband died on November 30, 1959, she received a number of notices from the income-tax department in respect of the arrears of income-tax stated to be due by her husband, including copies of notices issued to the banks attaching all monies and funds belonging to her husband, that on receipt of those notices, she intimated to the Income-tax Officer that she had no monies or assets of her husband, that a notice of demand dated December 10, 1959, had also been issued to the plaintiff calling upon her to pay a sum of 15,370.96 stated to be the tax due on a provisional assessment made under Section 23B of the Income-tax Act, that she understood the said notice to be one served on her in pursuance of a provisional assessment o...
S.F. Munuswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Erusa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad25
1. The defendants appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Venkatadri J. who reversed the judgment of the first appellate court and restored the decree of the trial court. There is no dispute that the suit properties belong to the first defendant on the basis of a purchase marie by him on 31-1-1935. He entered into a contract with one Lakshmiammal as the guardian of the present plaintiff and Krishnaswami who were minors, for sale of the properties to them for a consideration of Rs. 500 within two years. The suit was for declaration of title and for an injunction from interference. This was on the basis that Lakshmiammal and the minors were put in possession of the properties in part performance of the agreement to sell the properties. Defendant 2 and 4 who were among the appellants, had obtained a sale from the 1st defendant and attempted to trespass. That was the case of the plaintiff. The trial court found that there was an agreement of sale and the plaintiff had been put i...
Subbammal Vs. P. Gurusamy thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Mad278
ORDER1. These three revision petitions arise out of execution proceedings. In E. P. No. 36 of 1972 in O. S. No. 116 of 1971 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, three lots of properties were sold in court auction in pursuance of one and the same decree and the said three lots were purchased by three different third parties. The respective auction purchasers made the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase money in accordance with Order 21, Rule 84, C.P.C. The balance of purchase money was also deposited within the fifteen days period as contemplated under Rule 85 of Order 21. However, in each of the three cases, the deposit of general stamp was not proper. Though general stamps had been deposited, the same were deficient in each of the three cases. Eight days after the 15 days period prescribed under Rule 85, the deficient stamps were deposited by the respective auction purchaser and applications were filed for excusing the delay in depositing th...
V.S. Velliappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1980Mad4
ORDER1. This revision is against the order of the learned Land Tribunal confirming the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Ramanathapuram and dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. The facts are:The estate called R. M. P. V. Estate owned by late Palaniappa Chettiar of Poolankurchi had extensive lands in Minnamalaipatti and Malavanniaruppu villages. After the death of the original owner Palaniappa Chettiar in the year 1920, his descendants were enjoying the income derived from the estate according to their shares. Some of the descendants of late Palaniappa Chettiar formed a new firm called V. S. R. M. Firm. but the Authorised Officer held that the properties owned by the new firm as well as R. M. P. V. Firm are joint family properties. Some lands owned by the said estate were sold to V. S. R. M. Firm during the period between 6-4-1960 and 2-10-1962. The partners of V. S. R . M firm filed a joint statement before the Authorised Officer wherein they stated...
S. P. Munuswamy Gounder and ors. Vs. Erusa Gounder Alias S. P. C Dorai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1974
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ499
K. Veeraswami, C. J.1. The defendants appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of Venkatadri, J., who reversed the judgment of the first appellate Court and restored the decree of the trial Court. There is no dispute that the suit properties belong to the first defendant on the basis of a purchase made by him on 31st January, 1935 He entered into a contract with one Lakshmi Ammal as the guardian of the present plaintiff and Krishnaswami who were minors, for sale of the properties to them for a consideration of Rs. 500 within two years. The suit was instituted for declaration of title and for an injunction from interference. This was on the basis that Laskhmi Ammal and the minors were put in possession of the properties in part performance of the agreement to sell the properties. Defendants 2 and 4 who were among the appellants, had obtained a sale from the first defendant and attempted to trespass. T at was the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that there was an agree...
Nanak Chand ShaduraIn Vs. the Tinnelvely-tuticorIn Electric Supply Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad103; MANU/TN/0162/1975
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 26 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, is the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit alleging that it paid in excess to the defendant in the course of certain supplies of R. S. Joists for which orders were placed by the plaintiff with the defendant. It also included in the claim a sum of Rs. 210-70 towards demurrage charges which the plaintiff is said to have incurred due to the default on the part of the defendant, as also a sum of Rs. 410-41 towards bank charges which expense was also attributable to certain laches on the part of the defendant. It is common ground that under Ex. A-29 dated 17-6-1963 the defendant supplied towards order No. 1716/GL/2 dated 14-12-1961 placed by the plaintiff 265 pieces of R S, Joists untested of a particular specification as detailed in the invoice and charged a sum of Rs. 31,861-l7 as their Price which included transporting and delivery charges.Again, under ...
C.R. Corera and Bros. Vs. the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad213; (1975)1MLJ155
Somasundaram, J.1. The appellant-firm had taken on lease several units of machinery, instruments, godown etc. from the Port Department attached to the Government of pondicherry. The firm had to pay Rs. 27,495.74 as arrears in respect of the above leases. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Pondicherry filed a suit against the defendant in the year 1970, viz., O. S. No. 18 of 1970, for recovering this amount with interest. The petitioner denied his liability to pay the amount and pleaded set-off stating that by way of demurrage he was entitled to about Rs. 80,000. 2. The suit was posted for trial on 20-10-1970. The advocate who appeared for the petitioner filed an application for adjournment, producing medical certificate. The matter was adjourned to 2-12-1970. On that date, the representation was that the petitioner (partner representing the firm) had a heart attack. The suit was then adjourned to 21-12-1970. On further request it was adjourned to 8-1-1971 for trial. On that date,...
T.M. Pambayan Ambalam (Dead) and ors. Vs. K.R. Veeranan Ambalam and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad261
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2329-67 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the two defendants who are the respondents herein. The promissory note is dated 4-5-1959. The plaintiff relied on an endorsement of payment of a sura of Rs. 350 made on 27-4-1962 and signed by the defendants as saving the suit from the bar of limitation. The first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the second defendant in which it was stated that the promissory note was executed as security in connection with certain lease of a coconut thope and it was not supported by consideration. It was also pleaded that the signature of the defendants in the endorsement dated 27-4-1962 was a forgery and that therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.2. The trial court rejecting the defence held that the suit promissory note was supported by consideration and that the signature of the defendants in the...
Sath Nanak Chand Shandurain, Manufacturers, Importers and Stockists Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ431
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 21 of 1966 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Tuticorin, is the appellant. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit alleging that it paid in excess to the defendant in the course of certain supplies of R. S Joists for which orders were placed by the plaintiff with the defendant. It also included in the claim a sum of Rs. 210-70 towards demurrage charges which the plaintiff is said to have incurred due to the default on the part of the defendant, as also a sum of Rs. 410-41 towards bank charges which expense was also attributable to certain laches on the part of the defendant. It is common ground that under Exhibit A-29 dated, 17th June, 1963, the defendant supplied towards order No. 1716/GL/2 dated 14th December, 1961, placed by the plaintiff 265 pieces of R. S. Joists untested of a particular specification as detailed in the invoice and charged a sum of Rs. 31,861-17 as their price which included transporting and delive...
The State of Madras Vs. K.G. Ramani Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad26
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. The respondents' case that their lands in R. S. Nos, 41/4, 82/5 and 82/6 are exempt from the operation of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that they are orchards, was not accepted by the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Mayuram. But, on appeal, the Land Tribunal (The Subordinate Judge of Mayuram) accepted the contention of the respondents and allowed their appeal. It is to canvass the correctness of the judgment of the Tribunal that the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Thanjavur has preferred this revision petition.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader raises two contentions in support of the petitioner's case that the order of the Tribunal is wrong and erroneous. It is firstly argued that the respondents have not adduced proof to show that the lands in question continued to be orchards from the date of their conversion as orchards on or before 1st day of July, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »