Chennai Court April 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.
Samiappan Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ392
ORDERK. S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on the allegations that on the morning of 19th November, 1967 he advanced a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the defendant, that later on the same day the defendant executed a 'voucher' (Exhibit A-1) promising to pay the said sum with interest at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum, that he defaulted to pay and that therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount, limiting his claim for interest to six and one-fourth per cent. per annum.2. The defendant denied that he took any money from the plaintiff and he further denied that the signature in Exhibit A-1 was his. He contended that the suit had been falsely laid against him because of enmity which was itself due to the fact that the defendant helped a Harijan girl who filed a complaint against the plaintiff's son for alleged rape.3. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1, and the writer of Exhibit A-1 as P.W. ...
Thilagavathi and ors. Vs. Sundaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ427
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna , Salem dismissing a claim made Under Section 100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the death of one K. S. Loganathan in a tractor accident. The accident took place on 21st October, 1969, while Loganathan was ploughing his mother's and with the tractor, owned by his father Sundaram and insured by him with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The claimants who are the widow, daughter and mother of the deceased, alleged in the petition that, without any rashness or negligence on the part of Loganathan, the vehicle turned turtle suddenly at 1 p.M. on the date in question, with the result Loganathan fell down and was crushed to death by the tractor. It was a eged in the petition that the accident was due to mechanical defect in the vehicle. Sundaram the father of the deceased, remained ex parte.2. The Insurance Company filed a counter raising several objections, one...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Simson and Mc Conechy (Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ225Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner in the writ petition and the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal are one and the same,i.e. the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras. The petitioner filed E.I.0.P. No. 5 of 1966 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court (First Additional Judge, City Civil, Court, Madras) against the first respondent herein under Section 75(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Apt), for the recovery of the employer's Contribution of Rs. 6,470, This claim of the petitioner was allowed by the Employees' Insurance Court on November 23, 1967, and the first respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,470. Against this direction of the Employees' Insurance Court, the first respondent preferred C.M.A. No. 110 of 1968 on the file of this Court. During the pendency of this civil miscellaneous appeal, the petitioner herein sought to execute the order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, which order is enforceable...
Sulochana and ors. Vs. the Pandiyan Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad70
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent bank for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 70786-82 with subsequent interest on Rs. 69333-82 at 9 per cent per annum on the security of the properties mentioned in Schedules B to F of the plaint. The case of the first respondent-plaintiff was that the first defendant borrowed from the bank on various occasions on the security of the immovable properties shown in the Schedules B, C, D, E and F. The mortgage is by deposit of title deeds. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the documents were deposited in the Pandiyan Bank Ltd. at Madurai, though the loan applications were made to the Kumbakonam branch of the same bank. The first defendant did not dispute the actual borrowings but contended that the documents were not handed over to the plaintiff as equitable mortgage, but they were produced by him in order to satisfy the authorities of the bank that he was solvent. He also further contended ...
K. Krishnaswami Gounder Vs. Palani Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad197
Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the third judgment debtor in E. P.115 of 1971 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, dismissing his application under Order 21, Rule 90 and Section 151, Civil P. C. to set aside a judicial sale held in E. P. 115 of 1971 on 10-11-1971. The appellant, who appears to be a veteran litigant, has been keeping the decree holder at bay at every stage by raising all conceivable technical objections. The appellant, who was examined as P. W. 1, admitted that he came to court two days before the sale and learnt that his properties were being brought to sale. In fact even before the present execution petition was filed, the decree-holder filed two execution petitions, E. Ps. 336 of 1968 and 246 of 1969, both for sale of the properties. While those E. Ps. for sale were pending, the appellant applied for adjournment of sale on the ground that he had preferred an appeal in the High Court against the decree passed in the suit and...
M. Palaniappa Pillai Vs. M.M. Pambana Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad245
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The sixth respondent before the Court below is the revision petitioner before me. The only point that arose for determination by the Court below is whether it can send for the amount of Rs. 3,984-80. which is in the custodv of the Court of the District Munsif, Erode.to the credit of O. S. 111 of 1969 The first respondent herein, as decreeholder in O S. 261 of 1969 on the file of the Court below (the Court of the Subordi-nate Judge, Erode), filed an execution petition, got the abovesaid amount at tached and then filed E. A. 421 of 1972 for sending for that amount. This annlica-tion was opposed by two other decree holders against the same judgment-deb-tors. The judgment-debtors were array-ed as respondents 1 to 4 before the Court below and the two other decreeholders were arrayed as respondents 5 and 6 respectively in the abovesaid applicatior viz., E. A. No. 421 of 1972. The other two decreeholders have obtained decrees in the Court of the District Munsif, Erod...
K.A. Loganatha Naicker Vs. S.R. Balasundaram Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ256
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The respondent filed an application under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (XVIII of 1960), and also on the ground that the petitioner (tenant) has committed wilful default. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority allowed the petition on both the grounds. The appellate authority found that the non-payment of rent was wilful and that it is left to the landlord to make a choice as regards the portion of his own building for further or additional accommodation and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to which portion in the said house is convenient to the landlord. But, on the question whether an eviction should be ordered under Section 10 (3) (c), no definite finding has been given either by the Rent Controller or by the appellate authority regarding the crucial issue which arises in those cases on the question of hardship which is likely to be caused to the tenant ...
Veerabadra Pillai Vs. Rajeswari Vadachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ398
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, rejecting the appellant's petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that under Order 33, Rule 5 (d-1), Civil Procedure Code, as amended in Madras, the suit 'appears' to be barred by the law of limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the petition in limine even before ordering notice to the respondent. In fact, the petition was filed in Court on 5th April, 1972 and on the very next day, that is, on 6th April, 1972, he passed an order rejecting the petition with unholy hurry. One wonders why in the circumstances of the case, he should not have ordered notice and come to a decision after hearing the respondent. The anxiety to fulfil the demands of statistics appears to have precipitated the ill-conceived order of the learned Subordinate Judge.2. It is necessary to state a few facts before considering whether the petition of the appellant 'appears' to be bar...
Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. A. Venkataiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad119
1. The Union of India, owning the Northern Railway and the Southern Railway, respectively represented by their General Managers, are the appellants. The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on busings in betel leaves, and his course of dealings extends to tradine in North India as well. It is usual for the plaintiff to consign such betel leaves in specially prepared, baskets. each basket containing about 3000 leaves. and consign them through the Grand Trunk Express and the Janata Express belonging to the appellants to the various stations in North India. In the course of the dealings between 25-3-1962 and 24-6-1962, the respondent-plaintiff consigned from Madras such betel leaves packed in specially prepared baskets for being carried to Lucknow and Kanpur within the jurisdiction of the first appellant. As the goods were perishable, special precautions were taken by the respondent and the respondent expected that the carriers would take the goods as fast as they could and deliver the same a...
Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Northern Railway Represented by the Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ371
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Union of India, owning the Northern Railway and the Southern Railway, respectively represented by their General Managers, are the appellants. The plaintiff is a merchant carrying on business in betel leaves, and his course of dealings extends to trading in North India as well. It is usual for the plaintiff to consign such betel leaves in specially prepared baskets, each basket containing about 3,000 leaves, and consign them through the Grand Trunk Express and the Janata Express belonging to the appellants to the various stations in North India. In the course of the dealings between 25th March, 1962 and 24th June, 1962, the respondent-plaintiff consigned from Madras such betel leaves packed in specially prepared baskets for being carried to Lucknow and Kanpur within the jurisdiction of the first appellant. As the goods were perishable, special precautions were taken by the respondent and the respondent expected that the carriers would take the goods as fast as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »