Chennai Court March 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.
Damodaran Vs. the Food Inspector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ273
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the accused against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot, in C. A. 51 of 1973 on his file, confirming the conviction, but modifying the sentence, passed, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Sub-divi-sional Magistrate, Cheyyar, in C. C. 138 of 1973 on his file.2. The petitioner-accused on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of Tiruvattipuram town Panchayat under Sections 7 and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 2 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rule 44 (a) of the rules framed thereunder, with the allegation that on 30-12-71 at 3-15 p.m. he was found in possession of five litres of gingili oil for sale and sold 300 millilitre for the purpose of analysis and that on analysis, it was found that the sample contained 12 per cent of groundnut oil and hence adulterated, was found guilty under the said charge, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month...
Syed Hamed Vs. Commissioner, Thiruvarur Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ260
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This petition is filed by the accused, challenging the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagapat-tinam, in C, A. No. 62 of 1973 on his file, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Magistrate, Tiruvamr, in C. C. No. 1160 of 1973, on his file. The Commissioner of the Tiruvarur Municipality preferred a complaint under Schedule IV, Rules 30 (2), 36 (1) and 36 (10) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, for alleged wilful default in payment of property tax of RSection 2927, against the accused. The prosecution examined two witnesses to speak about the service of the demand notice on the accused by registered post and marked Ex. Pt 1, the postal acknowledgment. The accused contended in his statement under Section 342 Crl. P. C, that the tax levied is illegal and does not bear any relation to the annual value of the building as determined under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960. Further, he stated that the Municipal...
K. Venkataramanujam and ors. Vs. P.T. Parthasarathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ140
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, is the appellant. The plaintiff sued for declaration that he was entitled to be in joint possession along with the first defendant of the plaint schedule properties and for a direction that he be put in joint possession of those properties along with him and for a consequential accounting of the income from the properties for a period of three years prior to suit. Sri Boni Narayana Pillai Charity was created several years ago and amongst various properties endowed for the charity, there was an inam village which was taken over by the Government under the Estates Abolition Act. But it is common ground that from the compensation amount a Tasdiq allowance for the upkeep and maintenance of the charity as described in the third schedule to the plaint is being paid annually. Apart from the inam village, there are pannai lands, the patta for which was issued in the...
R. Selvaraj Vs. R. Raadhakrishna Pillai Alias R.R. Krishna Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad156; (1976)1MLJ105
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful' plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam, is the appellant. Originally the suit was numbered is O.S. No. 42 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one-third share in the suit properties and for future profits. The plaintiff's case is that his paternal grand-father Rajagopal Pillai started a photo business in 1917 under the name and style of Sri Krishna. Photo Studio. The first defendant is the plaintiff's father and the second defendant is the step-brother of the plaintiff. It is claimed that the first defendant got himself associated with his father in the photo business and both of them ran it as a joint family business. When the grandfather Rajagopal Pillai became old, the first defendant, was in sole charge of the studio and the business and the plaintiff after co...
Y. Abdul Mallik and Anr. Vs. St. Francis Xavier's Church, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ204
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit property. The first defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the vacant site. The lease was long prior to 1955, the monthly rent being Rs. 20. The first defendant put up a superstructure also prior to 1955 on the site as a tenant. On 15th July, 1965 the first defendant assigned both the leasehold right and the superstructure in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff determined the tenancy by notice dated 2nd May, 1966 and called upon the first defendant to deliver vacant possession. In the notice, the plaintiff had offered compensation of Rs. 300 to the first defendant for the superstructure put up by him. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the site which was leased out to the first defendant was part of the plaintiff Church and that therefore, the first defendant has no right of purchase of the land itself. In reply to thi...
Chinnaperumal Naicker Vs. Mariyayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad179; (1976)1MLJ85
G.J.R. Paul, J.1. This Second Appeal is by a husband against whom his wife, the respondent had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Subordiante Judge of Tiruchirapalli.2. The appellant married the respondent in 1954 according to Hindu rites and they were living together as husband and wife till 1963. Now, according to the respondent in the year 1963, there was a big fire accident in Uppiliar Street, Dasanallur, Tiruchirapalli and the hut in which she was living with the appellant was also burnt down with the result that they had no place to live in and hence her husband, the appellant, asked her to go and live with her parents and promised to take her back after reconstructing the house and hence she, the respondent went to her parents' house and was living there. But the appellant did not make good his promise to take her back even though he put up a thatched house and b...
Thayyanayaki Ammal and ors. Vs. Venugopala Pillai by Agent and Brother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ424
S. Mohan, J.1. The Plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful in both the Courts below, have preferred this Second Appeal. They filed O.S. No. 61 of 1966 before the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, for possession of the suit properties on the following allegations.2. One Sarangapani Pillai, the adopted son of Arunachalam Pillai of Adoor, died in 1921, when he was very young, leaving behind his widow, Arumbu Animal, and a daughter Valliammai. Prior to his death, he executed an unregistered will on the 10th of February, 1921, whereunder be gave a life estate over the suit properties in favour of Arumbu Animal, and after her life-time, the properties were to be taken in equal moieties by his minor daughter and Balakrishna, the brother of the testator. The will further recited that in the event of Valliammai dying without male issues, the heirs of Balakrishna would take the moiety of Valliammai also.3. One, Sournathachi filed O.S. No. 750 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kattumann...
Elector Diesel (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC589(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These four revision petitions relate to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1963-64. In respect of the last assessment year, there are two assessment orders and two revision cases, because of the change in the firm of the petitioners. The petitioners are dealers in asbestos sheets, etc. They were originally assessed on a certain turnover, accepting the returns submitted by them. Later on, on the ground that certain turnover in their returns under the Central Sales Tax Act relating to inter-State sales had escaped assessment, proceedings were initiated by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore-IV. The petitioner submitted their written objections to the proposed assessment and levy, and contended that the transactions which were sought to be taxed as inter-State sales were really local sales in Kerala State, as they were effected locally in that State after a transfer of stock from this State to the depot in that State. They, however, obtained C form declarations fr...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. R.V. Eswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC543(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The two respondents herein constituted a firm of partnership having head office at Madurai and a branch at Coimbatore. One of the partners had a separate sales depot of his own at Madras and the other partner had two other sales depots of his own, one at Tiruchirappalli and another at Salem. These two respondents were manufacturing appalams known as 'Ammami Appalam', in a unit at Kallidaikurichi. The manufactured appalams were distributed to the firms at Madurai and Coimbatore and also to the individual partners in their sales depots at Madras, Tiruchirap palli and Salem. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambasamudram, considered that there was a sale by the unit at Kallidaikurichi to the partnership firm at Madurai and Coimbatore and also to the individual partners at Madras, Tiruchirappalli and Salem and, accordingly, assessed the Kallidaikurichi unit, represented by the respondents herein, to sales tax on the value of the appalams distributed as aforesaid for the...
State of Madras Represented by the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ31
M.M. Ismail, J.1. A.S. No. 173 of 1970 arises out of O.P. No. 203 of 1966 while A.S. No. 174 of 1970 arises out of O.P. No. 19 of 1968, both on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem and both of them being references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The former appeal is concerned with the quantum of compensation payable for 3 acres and 68 cents of lands, while the latter appeal is concerned with the quantum of compensation payable for 4 cents of land, both the lands having been acquired for housing Harijans in Seelnaickenpatty, pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10th March, 1965. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at 8 paise per square foot, which was enhanced to 20 paise per sq. ft. by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Salem by the impugned order dated 19th April, 1969. The State has preferred these two appeals against the said enhancement principally contending that there was no materia...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »