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.
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Manickavasaka Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad147
1. (22-8-73) The petitioner in E. A. No. 54 of 1965 in O. S. No. 92 of 1962 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale held on 21-12-1964 on the ground that it is vitiated by material irregularity and fraud, is the appellant before us.2. The property in dispute is claimed to have been purchased by the appellant from one K. M. Krishnan for Rs. 25.000 under a registered sale deed dated 17-10-1962. The first respondent Manickavasaka Reddiar filed a suit against the said K. M. Krishnan in O. S. 92 of 1962 and obtained a decree on 13-3-1963. In execution of the decree, in E. P. No. 160 of 1963 the petition mentioned property was attached on 16-7-1963. The appellant filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code on the ground that she purchased the property on 17-10-62 and prayed for raising of the attachment. That petition was dismissed. The appellant did not take up the matt...
The Settlement Officer, Salem and ors. Vs. K.V. Krishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad146
1. The question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta under Section 11 of Madras Act 26 of 1948, there is in him or the Director of Settlement the power to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Ismail J. held that there is no such power. We are in entire agreement with this view. A specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in Section 67 on the reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a specified time. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded. That means neither the Settlement Officer nor the Director of Settlements has the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.2. It is true that there is no limitation provided for a revision under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. But the order in the instant, case will not fall within th...
R. Srinivasan Vs. the Management of Narasu's Coffee Company and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ298Mad
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. We would have readily agreed with the counsel for the respondent that the power of transfer is inherent in the management which has for several branches and there is no indication in the appointment order that the employee was not subject to transfer (See Alexandre Bouzourou v. The Ottoman Bank) A.I.R. 1930 P. C. 118, but the Commissioner's conclusion was based on the facts and the history of the appellant's case. The appellant was employed by the previous management to serve in Tiruchi. He had done so far more than 17 years and on a small salary of Rs. 58 per mensem. The respondent took over from June 1, 1966, and appointed the appellant by a fresh order. The Commissioner on these facts was of opinion that the appellant was appointed to work at Tiruchi branch. That was a factual conclusion justified by the facts and the history of the case.2. That being so, there is no justification to invoke any point of law or inherent power in the management to transfer. ...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Thanjavur Vs. K.G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ220
ORDERS. Natarajan, 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 contention 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,...
The Settlement Officer and ors. Vs. K.V. Krishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ328
1. The question in this case is whether in respect of a revision from an order of the Assistant Settlement Officer granting patta under Section 11 of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, there is in him or the Director of Settlements, the power to condone a delay in filing the revision petition. Ismail, J., held that there is no such power. We are in entire agreement with this view. A specific rule has been framed under the rule-making power provided in Section 67 with reference to Section 11 that the revision petition to the Settlement Officer or a revision to the Director should be filed within a specified time. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been expressly excluded. That means, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Director of Settlements has the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.2. It is true that there is no limitation provided for a revision under Section 5 or Section 7 of the Act. But the order in the instant case will not fall within ...
Associated Traders and Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. V.C.S. Industries (P) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad29
Natarajan, J.1. Associated Traders and Engineers (P) Ltd., the petitioner in both these petitions, are carrying on business as carrier and transport operator. In respect of certain goods entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents in the two petitions for transport, the goods did not reach the destination and were lost en route. The respondents, therefore, filed actions against the petitioner and claimed the value of the goods entrusted for transport. One of the defences raised by the petitioner before the lower court was that as per the terms of the contract entered into between the parties all claims against the petitioner should be sued for only in the courts in Delhi city and that the said condition had also been incorporated as Clause 17 in the G. R. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. After proceeding to consider the claims on merits, the learned Su...
Associated Traders and Engineers (Private) Limited Vs. V.C.S. Industri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ198
S. Natarajan, J.1. Associated Traders and Engineers (Private) Limited, the petitioner in. both these petitions, are carrying on business as carrier and transport operator. In respect of certain goods entrusted to the petitioner by the respondents in the two petitions for transport, the goods did not reach the destination and were lost en route. The respondents, therefore, filed actions against the petitioner and claimed the value of the goods entrusted for transport. One of the defences raised by the petitioner before the lower Court was that as per the terms of the contract entered into between the parties all claims against the petitioner should be sued for only in the Courts in Delhi city and that the said condition had also been incorporated as Clause 17 in the G. R. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. After proceeding to consider the claims on merits, t...
Surendra Overseas Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1974Mad297
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Chief Controller of Chartering, Government of India chartered the vessel 'A. P. Aruna', owned by the defendants, and entered into a charter party on 16-8-1963 under Ex. B.1. The charter was intended for the carriage of certain consignments of urea together with a certain quantity of empty gunny bags from Venice-Port Merghera to a port in West coast or East cost in India. The bills of lading evidencing the loading of he cargo are Exs. A.1 and A.2, which in turn incorporated the material terms contained in the charter party. Exs. A. 10 and A.11 are he certificates of weight issued at the port of shipment, whilst Exs. A.12 and A.13 are the certificates of origin relating to the goods. Ex. A.14 is the invoice issued by the seller. The invoice discloses the shipment of two consignments of urea, in all, 1,31,140 bags, for carriage to Madras and also 1312 empty bags along with it. Ex. A.15 is the certificate of inspection given by the High Commissioner of India at th...
Sri Chamundi theatre Mysore Talkies Ltd. Vs. S. Chandrasekara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1974
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas60(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The defendant is the appellant. On January 10, 1959, one G.P. Raju Mudaliar as a partner of a managing agency firm to the defendant-incorporated company, executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the plaintiff and mortgaged the immovable properties and all the other properties belonging to the company. The consideration as recited in the deed of mortgage, exhibit A-1, was that it was to pay for two money decrees obtained against the defendant-company by the plaintiff as proprietor of a concern known as ' Standard Commercial Corporation, Coimbatore'. In order to avoid execution of the decrees so obtained by the plaintiff, the managing agents executed the above mortgage and, according to them, averted further proceedings in execution of the money decrees. After the said mortgage was executed moneys were paid thereunder. The plaintiff unsuccessfully made a demand ...
V.K. Somasundaram Chetty Vs. Ganga Bai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ152
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the third respondent herein, namely, the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department Madras-34, to dismiss O.A. No. 104 of 1969 filed by the first respondent and pending on his file. The said O.A. was filed by the first respondent herein under Sections 63 (a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to declare Sri Paripoorna Chakra Vinayakar Temple situate at No. 1, Veeraswami Pillai Street, Periamet, Madras-3, as a public temple and to declare the first respondent as the continuing hereditary trustee. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 127 of 1972 requesting the third respondent herein to consider and decide whether the said O.A. is maintainable at all as a preliminary issue. His conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »