Chennai Court March 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.
The State Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Vs. the Sree Meenakshi Mills L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad139
Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. setting aside the award of the arbitrator dated 20-1-1970. The award itself was made under the following circumstances. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai, instituted a suit in O. S 4 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, for referring a dispute between the Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and the State Electricity Board, Madras, to an arbitrator for decision. The Electricity Board opposed the reference. But the Subordinate Judge directed the reference to be made to the arbitrator for decision on two questions-1. Whether the plaintiff's mill at Paravai is a new industrial unit, within the meaning of the G. O. Ms. No. 3059 PWD dated 9-7-1956 and marked as Ex. B-22 in the case? and 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the exemption from levy of additional surcharge of 30 per cent under the G. O. referred to above? The Electricity Board took the matter on appeal to ...
The State Electricity Board Vs. the Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ195
S. Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, setting aside the award of the Arbitrator dated 20th January, 1970. The award itself was made under the following circumstances: Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited, Madurai, instituted a suit in O.S. No. 4 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, for referring a dispute between the Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited and the State Electricity Board, Madras to an arbitrator for decision. The Electricity Board opposed the reference. But the Subordinate Judge directed the reference to be made to the Arbitrator for decision on two questions:(1) Whether the plaintiff's mill at Paravai is a new industrial unit within the meaning of the GO. Ms. No. 3059 P.W.D., dated 9th July, 1956 and marked as Exhibit B-22 in the case? and(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the exemption from levy of additional surcharge of 30 per cent, under the G.O. referred to above ?The Electricity Boa...
Kalyani Ammal Vs. the Official Receiver of North Arcot and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ340
ORDERN. S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two revision petitions are filed by the second respondent in I.A. No. 68 of 1970 in Insolvency Petition No. 11 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. The first respondent to that application was adjudged insolvent in I.P. No. 11 of 1968 on 6th April, 1970. The Official Receiver, in whom the insolvent's properties came to be vested, filed I.A. No. 68 of 1970 for setting aside two alienations made by the insolvent, under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, one in favour of the second respondent therein and the other in favour of the third respondent therein. The first respondent to the application is the insolvent. Both those alienations were within two years prior to the presentation of the insolvency petition. The Insolvency Court (Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore) allowed the said application in respect of both the alienations. The third respondent to the application did not fi...
Prakasam Alias Padmini Vs. Rajambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad282
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She is the daughter of one Shanmugha Mudaliar, who died in the year 1959. The first defendant is the mother of the said Shanmugha Mudaliar and the second defendant is his wife and the mother of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by her challenging certain alienations made by Shanmugha Mudaliar on various grounds. The said Shanmugha Mudaliar had executed a document dated 5-5-1948 in favour of one Papammal, whose legal representatives are defendants 3 to 6 in the suit. In respect of this transaction, the plaintiff's case was that it was executed at a time when the said Shanmugha Mudaliar was insane, that it was therefore null and void and that no right or interest was created in favour of Papammal, Alternatively it was contended that the document is a mortgage by conditional sale or it is a sale with a right of reconveyance and that in either case the plaintiff is entitled to redeem or to get a reconveyance of the same on payment of the ...
V. Alagar thevar Vs. the Madurai Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad77
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. TheMadurai Municipality farmed out its right to collect fees in connection with the weekly shandies and annual cattle fair held within its jurisdiction for the year 1902-63. The auction was held on 6-3-1962 and the Council of the Madurai Municipality accepted the defendant's bid of Rs. 70,000 as it was the highest, by its resolution dated 16-3-1062. Admittedly the defendant was put in possession of the market from 1-4-1062. The defendant executed the agreement Ex. A-1, on 7-4-1962. The period during which the defendant could remain in the market for purposes of collecting the fees therefrom is admittedly one year commencing from 1-4-1962 and ending with 3-1-3-1963. For purposes of this case one or two salient clauses of the contract may be referred to. In particular, if the contractor fails to perform or observe any of the covenants in the said agreement it shall be lawful for the Municipal Council in addition to and without prejudice to its other rights and reme...
Muthu Bhattar Vs. Shanbagakannu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad76
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal comes before us on a remit order by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2561 of 1966, Kailasam J. had in second Appeal relied on Prayag Doss Jee v. Govindacharlu : AIR1935Mad220 and held that the transfer in favour of the transferor's maternal aunt's son could not be said to be invalid, in : AIR1935Mad220 we find that Varadachariar and Burn, JJ., after a consideration of all the earlier decided cases, held that a gift in favour of a sister's son of the last male holder was good, though a nearer heir was available. When the present matter came up before a Division Bench under the Letters Patent, the appellant was allowed to take a new point, to wit, that the transfer amounted to a conveyance for consideration and therefore it was invalid. The subject-matter of the transfer in this case was 1-7/8 days' archaka right with about 2 acres of land attached thereto. The Division Bench held that the transfer being for consideration, namely, it was subject to ...
Ponnaiah Servai Alias Irulappan Servai Vs. Sree Visalam Chit Fund, Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ206
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The appellant herein is the second defendant judgment-debtor in E.P. No. 159 of 1972 in O.S. No. 96 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul and this appeal is preferred against the order dated 20th February. 1973.2. The above-said execution petition, E.P. No. 159 of 1972 was filed on 21st September, 1972 under Order 21, Rules 37 and 38, Civil Procedure Coda, praying for the arrest of the 2nd defendant and for committing him to civil prison, for the recovery of Rs. 17,868-41 being the amount of the decree dated 31st October, 1968 in the abovesaid suit. The suit was filed by the respondent plaintiff against this appellant and five others for a claim of Rs. 12,542-45 with interest and costs, since the first defendant viz., one Tmt. Saral, who took the chit in auction for the sixth call on 24th May, 1966, failed to pay the subsequent instalments of the chit amount. This appellant and defendants 3 and 4 executed guarantee-letters st...
T.A. Sankaralingam Vs. T.N. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad206; (1975)1MLJ376
Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of Ganesan, J, dismissing the appellant's C. M. S. A. No. 132 of 1969, reported in : (1971)2MLJ136 . Nallusami Poosari, Natanasabapathi Poosari, Arumugham and Gandhi were members of an undivided Hindu coparcenary. On 1-12-1949, they executed a mortgage for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the appellant's father, Ardhanari Gounder. After the death of the mortgagee, the appellant, his son, instituted O. S. No. 888 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari at Salem, for the recovery of moneys due under the said mortgage. At the time of the institution of the suit. Natanasabapatbi had died leaving him surviving Mariyayee, his widow, and T. N. Mani, his only son (first respondent). It appears that on the date of the institution of the suit, T. N. Mani had attained majority. However, in ignorance of that fad, the appellant instituted the suit against Natanasabapathi as the first defendant, Mariyayee as the second defendant, ...
State of Madras Through the District Collector and anr. Vs. A.K. Vetha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ151
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1.The only question that arises in this revision is as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in a representative capacity on behalf of the entire ayacutdars of one Palakulam tank in Tirunelveli district for an injunction is bad for want of proper notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The Court below has held that suit being one for an injunction does not require a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code, and that therefore, the suit is maintainable.2. In this revision, it is contended on behalf of the State of Madras, that the suit which has been filed in this case before the expiry of 60 days from the date of issue of notice under Section 80 is bad and therefore is not maintainable. The plaintiff sought an injunction in the suit restraining the State of Madras from closing a weir in Periakulam tank through which the ayacutdars received their supply of water to their tank. They issued a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on 27th Janua...
Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Subbaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad208
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 4 of 1963, arises out of the final decree proceedings. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents herein for partition and separate possession of their 23/48th share in the plaint A schedule properties. That suit was decreed on 31-7-1964. Neither the plaintiffs have prayed for past or future mesne profits in the plaint nor the preliminary decree directed an enquiry into the mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil P. C. The plaintiffs filed IA. 124 of 1966 for partition of the immovable properties and separate possession as directed in the preliminary decree. They also filed TA 205 of 1966 for determination of mesne profits for the suit items from fasli 1372 onwards and to incorporate the same in the final decree. The dispute in these proceedings related to the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the question of mesne profits in the absence of a prayer in the suit either for past or future mesne profit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »