Chennai Court December 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.
R. Essa Vs. N.M. Jamal and Sons, Represented by Nazir Noor Ali Jamal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ218
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This is an application filed by the respondent in S.A. No. 431 of 1972 for punishing the appellant therein for contempt of Court. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the respondent in the contempt application has committed contempt by disobeying the decree in S.A. No. 431 of 1972. The respondent, who is the appellant in S.A. No. 431 of 1972, was granted three months time to vacate and deliver possession of the suit property. The said order was passed on 2nd May, 1974. The respondent ought to have delivered possession of the property to the petitioner on or before 2nd August, 1974. But the respondent did not deliver possession of the property. Instead, the respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 5654 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court (VI Assistant) Madras, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to the property under the seventh defendant in the suit, Sri Sundareswara Devasthanam represented by its Executive Off...
Chennai Vedantha Sangam by Its Secretary Vs. V. Shanmughasundaram and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ435
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the construction put up unauthorisedly in the plaint schedule property, premises No. 124/125, Sami Naicken Street, Chintadripet, Madras, and to level the ground restoring it to its original condition and also for directing the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, they came to know about two months prior to the filing of the suit that the defendant had started putting up new construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for putting up shops. This act of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs was unauthorised and illegal on his part, and he has no right or authority to put up construction in the open space reserved by the plaintiffs for constructing a market. The defendant, inter alia,, contended that according to the tenancy created in the year 1926 he has put u...
Arumugham Chettiar and ors. Vs. A. Vallinayagam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ46
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one third share in the plaint schedule properties and for mesne profits.2. The case of the plaintiff was that one Thiruvengadathammal got the suit properties under a will dated 25th January, 1925, that Thiruvengadathammal executed a will on 13th June, 1931 giving a life-estate in the plaint schedule properties to her daughter-in-law Sivagnanathamal, wife of Manickavasagam Chettiar and the vested remainder to her three sons, viz., Surianarayanan Chettiar, Ammugham Chettiar and Kasiviswanathan. Arumugham Chettiar is the first defendant and Kasiviswanathan is the second defendant. Minor Chelli Manickathammal, daughter of the second defendant, has been impleaded as the third defendant. According to the will of Thiruvengadathammal, marked as Exhibit A-2 in the case, Sivagnanathammal had to enjoy the properties without any power of alienation till her lifetime...
M.S.P. Raja and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR295(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under the Income-tax Act raisingthe following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the claim for deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs, 12,198 or any part thereof in the case of Shri M. S. P. Rajah and Rs. 26,940 or any part thereof in the case of Shri M. S. P. Rajes is lawful ?'2. The reference is common to two assessees as the facts in each of these cases are identical. M. S. P. Rajah and M. S. P. Rajes are brothers. They were partners in two firms known as 'Messrs. M. S. P. Nadar Sons' and 'Messrs. Hill Tiller and Company'. In September, 1962, that is, during the financial year 1962-63, the two assessees constituted another firm called 'Riverdale Estate', which is said to be an estate raising mainly coffee in Yercaud. Each of them contributed Rs. 3,00,000 for the purchase of the said agricultural estate. The capital was provided by the two ...
The South Indian Bank Ltd., by Its General Manager, M.G.P. Nambiar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ431
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 85 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, is the appellant. Defendants 2 to 8, as partners of a registered partnership firm, known as V. Krishna Chettiar and Brother had on application obtained financial aid from the plaintiff-Bank under four different heads, such as Key Loan Advances, Gash Credit Open Loans, Bills Purchases Account, and Cheques Discounting Account. From time to time, under one or other of the Heads of Advances, moneys were lent by the plaintiff-Bank to the partnership firm. The partnership was running an oil mill and a Ginning Factory. The premises in which the machinery of the mill and the factory was situate belonged to some of the partners of the line. But, in connection with the advances made by the Bank to the partnership firm in connection with the partnership business, two kinds of securities were offered by the partners-The first one was under Exhibit A-24, dated 113th May, 1964, wherein some of ...
Miss C. Pushpam Vs. D. Jeevaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad215
ORDERMohan, J.1. In this application, the petitioning creditor seeks to amend the main insolvency petition filed on 7-10-1972, by stating that he had come to know that one G. Shyamala, wife of G. Chandriah, residing at Sannadhi Street, Kaladipet, Madras, had obtained a decree against the debtor in 0. S. No. 4286 of 1964, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, and filed E. P. No. 2832 of 1972 in the City Civil Court, Madras, and obtained orders of attachment on 29-12-1972, on the property of the insolvent-debtor viz, 61 Mathu Mudali St, Roya-pettah, and effected attachment on 30-12-1972. The original cause of action on which the petition for insolvency is based, is that the debtor had departed from his dwelling house from his usual business place at Muthu Mudali St. Royapettah and is otherwise absenting himself with the intention to defeat and delay his creditors.2. Learned counsel for the petitioning-creditor submits before me that the petition for amendment was filed on 12-2-197...
Miss C. Pushpam Vs. D. Jeevaraj, Proprietor, Usha Decorators
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ344
S. Mohan, J.1. In this application, the petitioning creditor seeks to amend the main insolvency petition filed on 7th October, 1972 by stating that he had come to know that one G. Shyamala, wife of G. Chandriah, residing at Sannadhi Street, Kaladipet, Madras, had obtained a decree against the debtor in O.S. No. 4286 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras and filed E.P. No. 2832 of 1972 in the City Civil Court, Madras, and obtained orders of attachment on 29th December, 1972 on the property of the insolvent-debtor viz., 61, Muthu Mudali Street, Royapettah and effected attachment on 30th December, 1972. The original cause of action on which the petition for insolvency is based, is the debtor had departed from his dwelling house, from his usual business place at Muthu Mudali Street, Royapettah and is otherwise absenting himself with the intention to defeat and delay his creditors.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioning-creditor submits before me that the petition for amendment...
Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Vs. A.G. Dhamodaraswami Naidu (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ432
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore, is the petitioner. One A.G. Dhamodaraswami Naidu, held on 6th April, 1960, an extent of 118.016 ordinary acres equivalent to 38.528 standard acres of agricultural land. As he was entitled only to hold 30 standard acres under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, action was taken by the statutory functionaries to fix the ceiling limit. On the publication of the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of the Act, Dhamodaraswami Naidu, who was alive on that date, filed objections thereto that the above extent reckoned by the statutory officers included his holding in an agricultural company known as Messrs A. G. D. (Private) Ltd. and if the extent of his shareholding in the agricultural company is deducted, there would be no excess in his hands for the same being declared as such and taken over by the Government under the provisions of Act LVIII of 1961. But the Authorised Officer h...
Rabia Bai Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Property and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ138
S. Natarajan, J.1. These appeals arise out of Writ Petitions Nos. 1259 of 1971 and 1260 of 1971 respectively, wherein the petitioner-appellant sought writs, one of certiorari to quash the orders of the first respondent relating to the transfer of certain cash balances belonging to an evacuee by name Abdul Gani Jan Mohamed and the notification of the second respondent in connection there- with and the other, a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to recall the moneys of the said evacuee and the sale proceeds of his property from the second respondent and return a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 with interest thereon. Hamaprasada Rao, J., declined to grant either of the writs, though he held that the petitioner was entitled to the money claimed by her from out of funds, if any, possessed by the Custodian and her right to secure a refund still survived.2. This unfortunate case has a long history, but most of the facts are not in controversy. On 29th April, 1949, the appellant, a permanent ...
Kamalammal Vs. Krishnan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad367
1. (On difference of opinion between Venkataraman and Maharajan, JJ.) :-- The suit property which, is situated within the City of Madras originally belonged to one Murugesa Mudaliar. By a settlement deed dated 17-4-1941 he gave a life interest in it in favour of his wife Gnanambal and after her death to his daughter Kamalammal for life with the vested remainder in favour of sons of Kamalammal. Both the life interest holders Gnanambal and Kamalammal were prohibited from alienating the property or in any way encumbering the same except under certain circumstances which have not arisen in this case Gnanambal the first life estate holder leased the suit site in favour of the defendant-respondent herein sometime in the year 1950. There is a dispute as to the exact extent of the land leased but that is not material for the purpose of disposal of this case. After obtaining the lease the tenant had put up a superstructure thereon and had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Gnanambal ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »