Chennai Court January 1975 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.
Kamakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. Pappathi Alias Kamalambai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad292; (1976)2MLJ60
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners sought for a refund of a sum of Rs. 979.50, which as in court deposit, pursuant to interim orders made by this Court, whilst the respondents equally claim that that amount is payable to them, as the same was deposited by them into Court as per orders of Court and that the petitioners have no right, title or interest therein. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest was the landlord and the first respondent was his tenant of agricultural lands in the district of Thanjavur. He filed a suit O.S. No. 40 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Tiruvarur, for the recovery of arrears of rent by then payable by the first respondent-first defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The first plaintiff in that suit took up the matter further in appeal to the District Court, Nagapattinam in A.S. No. 76 of 1964 and the same was allowed. The tenant-defendant preferred an appeal to this Court in S.A. No. 1061 of 1966, and sought for stay of...
The Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Through Its Secretary S. Seshacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad323; (1975)2MLJ214
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Virudhu-nagar, constituted or established by the Govern men t of Tamil Nadu under Section 5 of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act (XXIII of 1959) who is the defendant in OS. No. 90 of 1968, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai is the appellant. The Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1959 came into force on 22nd October, 1962. But by a notification in the Fort. St. George Gazette on 18th April, 1962 pursuant to the G.O. Ms. No. 1054 (Food and Agriculture) dated 30th March, 1962 the State Government directed the constitution of a market committee at Virudhunagar and markets at Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam and Sattur in Ramanathapuram District. These committees were no doubt regularly constituted and established ur der the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (XX of 1935). The main intend-ment of the Act is to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of commercial produce ...
M.V. Kuppuswami Vs. the Taluk Supply Officer, Sriperumbudur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Mad395
ORDERRamanujam, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of a public carrier hearing MSV 9380. On 6-10-1974, three persons, Nagappa Naicker and Kumar, both of Nazarathpet and Manicka Mudaliar of Thirumalisai are said to have entrusted with the petitioner 80 bags of paddy and one bag of ragi for transport. from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet both of which are inside Sriperumbudur taluk in Cbingleput Dt. As there was no restriction on the movement of the goods from one place to another with-in the same taluk, the petitioner is said to have accepted the paddy and ragi entrusted to him for transport and the bags were loaded in his lorry MSV 9380. The lorry when it was proceeding from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet had been intercepted by the first respondent at Thinnnangalam and the entire 81 bags found in the lorry had been seized.2. The petitioner questions the validity of the said seizure on various grounds. Firstly he contends that no mahazar was pre-pared and no independent witnesses were called t...
Kazimar Periya Pallivasal Through Its Trustees M. Mir Hamidulla Hussai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad45; (1975)2MLJ454
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Kazimar Periya Pallivasal, Kazimar Street, Madurai, represented by its trustees, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 388 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a bare suit for the appointment of a receiver for the suit lands and for certain ancillary directions in the following circumstances. The Pallivasal owns properties in Iruvathanallur limits, Madurai District, and the defendants are said to be the lessees in occupation of such lands belonging to the pallivasal which they have been cultivating on a warano basis. After the passing of the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Madras Act XXX of 1963), the inams came to be vested in the Government under Section 3 of Act XXX of 1963 and in consequence thereof and as ordained by the provisions of the Act there was an enquiry as to the nature of the rights to which the plaintiffs and the defendants would be entitled to. In the ...
N. Bhaskaran Vs. PA. Sarkarai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ291
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 379 of 1967, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, is the appellant herein.2. The appellant is the son of one A.B. Nagaraja Aiyar, the mortgagee under Exhibit A-1, dated September, 1952, executed by one N.T. Perumal Gounder, the deceased husband of the second respondent-second defendant, for a sum of Rs. 7,500. The first respondent first defendant is stated to be a foster son of the said Perumal Gounder. The mortgage deed provided that the amount secured under the document, viz., Rs. 7,500 was payable on the expiry of three years from the date of the mortgage. The suit itself was instituted on 15th November, 1967. In the plaint, by way of explaining the delay in claiming exemption from the bar of limitation, the appellant stated in paragraph 8:Cause of section for the suit arose on 7th September, 1962, when the mortgage was executed at Satyamangalam, on 7th September, 1955,when the three year period fixed under the mortgag...
A.N. Ramaswami Iyer and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, the Hindu Religious ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ178
S. Maharajan, J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, dismissing their suit with costs of the contesting first defendant. The suit itself was filed by the plaintiffs for themselves and as members of the Committee of the Agraharam Pothu, Dharmam alias Dharma Paripalana Sabha of Vadakku Ariyanayagipuram, against the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Madras (the first defendant), and the Executive Officer, Sri Kailasanatha-swami Devasthanam, Ariyanayagipuram (the second defendant), for setting aside the order of the first defendant dated 10th. May, 1963 in Appeal No. 45 of 1962. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows : In the village of Ariyanayagipuram in Tirunelveli District are situate two temples ; one is a Siva temple called Sri Kailasanathaswami Devasthanam, and the other a Vishnu temple known as Venkatachalapathi Devasthanam. Sri Kailasanathaswami Devasthana...
The Union of India (UOi), owning the Southern Railway, represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ341
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The Union of India owning the Southern Railway, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, the defendant in O.S. No. 4570 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the respondents herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,000 being the damages alleged to have been suffered in relation to a boiler consigned by A.C.C. Baccok Limited, Durgapur, for carriage to Davanagere in June, 1965 to the first respondent 'herein. Among the various defences set up by the appellant herein, one was that the suit was premature, since the period prescribed in Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for institution of the suit had not expired on the date when the suit was instituted. Overruling this defence, the trial Court by its judgment and decree, dated 14th September, 1970, decreed the suit of the respondents. Hence the present appeal by the defendant in the suit.2. Since I am reversing the decision of the trial ...
Cosmopolitan Club by Its Secretary Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ460
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. The Cosmopolitan club, Madras, which is a well-known members' club, owns 66 grounds 2150 sq. ft. of land in Mount Road. The club was required to pay urban land tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1963, for eight years from 1st July, 1963 at the standard tax rate of 0-4 p.c. on the market value of the urban land owned by the club. The club claimed that it was entitled to the concession of 25 percent, under Section 26 of the Act, which, so far as material says:26.--(1) Where any building is occupied wholly by the owner for residential purposes only and where such owner makes an application to the Urban Land Tax Officer, that officer shall. reduce by 25 per cent the amount of urban land tax payable on the urban land on which the building has been constructed and on the urban land appurtenant to such building.The Urban Land Tax Officer rejected the claim, observing:.section 26 (1) is very clear that a building occupied wholly by the owner for residential pu...
T.A. Ramasubramaniam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1975
Reported in: [1975]100ITR408(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee was a civil servant under the Government of Tamil Nadu and retired from service on March 28, 1952. Originally his pension was fixed at Rs. 484.87 per mensem and was being paid at that rate. Later on in the view that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of the Liberalised Pension Rules, 1950, in Government Order Ms. No. 1877 (Finance) dated November 23, 1956, he was held entitled to a death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 17,820 and a pension of Rs. 395.19. Accordingly, in lieu of the pension of Rs. 484.87, the pension was revised as Rs. 395.19 and death-cum-retirement gratuity payable at Rs. 17,820. This order was given retrospective effect from March 28, 1952, when the officer retired from the service. 2. It appears that the difference between the sum of Rs. 395.19 which was payable under the revised fixation of the pension and the sum of Rs. 484.87 which was actually paid was adjusted from the death-cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 17,820 and the pensi...
Arunachalam Vs. the Depnty Chief Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1975
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ270Mad
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. The appellant was employed in the Loco Works, Perambur, in the Southern Railways. He was removed from service with effect from 30-7-1973 by orderdated 28-7-1973 by the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical Works, Perambur. He preferred an appeal to the Superintendent, Mechanical Works (Personnel). That authority dismissed the appeal on 29-8-1973. To quash the order of removal, he filed W.P. 502 of 1974 in this Court, which was dismissed by Ismail, J., at the admission stage. this writ appeal has been filed, against the order of Ismail, J.2. The appellant entered the railway service as a trade apprentice on 20-2-1948. The rules required that an applicant for that post must have attained the age of 17 year and should not have attained the age of 19 years on 1-12-1947. The appellant, in his application dated 9-2-1948, gave his date of birthwas 20-4-1929. On 20-2-1948 he was appointed, on the basis that his date of birth was 20-4-1929. If that was his date of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »