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.
Dr. K. Ramanujam Vs. the Accommodation Controller and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ302
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises, Old No. 9 and new No. 10, Doraiswami Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17. The above premises comprises of two portions, one in front side and one in back side, each having a first floor. The front portion was originally allotted by the Accommodation Controller to one K. Sivarajan. The back portion was occupied by a private tenant. The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the said tenant on the ground of owner's occupation and ultimately got possession. This portion was subsequently occupied by the petitioner's son and daughter after notifying the vacancy to the Accommodation Controller.2. On 21st July, 1970, the petitioner applied to the first respondent to release the front portion to enable him to effect certain substantial repairs. The first respondent, by his order dated 20th August, 1971, released the front portion under Section 12 (1) (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. After such a release, the...
M.A. Rathinam Vs. Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad309; (1975)2MLJ365
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. The petition is to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet made in E.A. No. 360 of 1974 which was filed under Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 for stay of the execution of the decree obtained by the respondent against the petitioner in O.S. No. 231 of 1970 on the file of the same Court in E.P.R. No. 60 of 1974.2. The petitioner alleged that after the decree had been obtained he paid Rs. 400 on 22nd November, 1972 and that he is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 and to have the decree scaled down. He alleged that he would file a petition for the purpose of sealing down of the debt under Section 19 of the Act and prayed that the execution petition should therefore be stayed under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The respondent opposed the petition contending that the petitioner was assessed to profession tax and owns two houses and one shop and pays property tax to the extent of R...
V. Ramanathan Vs. the Board of Revenue Represented by Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ367
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner herein and the third respondent applied for a no-objection certificate for locating a touring cinema in the village of Vallalnathi, Periakulam Taluk. The Petitioner's application was filed on 15th September, 1973 and the third respondent's application, though dated 14th September, 1973, is found to have been properly presented only on 17th September, 1973. The petitioner's application was in respect of S. No. 423/A while the third respondent's application was in respect of S. No. 417/3.2. The petitioner had obtained a no-objection certificate earlier for locating a permanent ciema in S. No. 423/1-A and the said certificate was current on 15th September, 1073, the date of the application for a no-objection certificate for establishing a touring cinema. It is not in dispute that both S. No. 423 /I-A and 417/3 were found suitable for locating touring cinemas. While the petitioner's application was recommended by the Panchayat, the third respondent's...
Kannan and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC300(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the order passed by the Board of Revenue under Section 34. The appellant is a manufacturer of iron locks and latches and dealer in hardware. For the assessment year 1966-67 he returned a total and taxable turnovers of Rs. 41,024.43 and Rs. 36,856.69 respectively. On the ground that the day-to-day account was not maintained and the gross profit shown was abnormal, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer added 25 per cent of the taxable turnover returned to cover defects and probable omissions. On this head the amount added thus came to Rs, 9,214.17. The assessing authority also was of the view that due to wrong classification or wrong inclusion of taxable turnovers in the second or subsequent sales of declared goods, a turnover of Rs. 1,238.46 is also to be included in the taxable turnover. This was arrived at on the basis that out of the turnover of Rs. 4,167.74...
C. Somayya Vs. E.V. Chinniah Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ336
S. Mohan, J.1. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Courts below in the suit on a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, the defendant has come up by way of Second Appeal.2. The allegations in the plaint are that the defendant is a permanent resident of Thevarambur, Ranmad District. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,600 upon a promissory note from one Rama Konar of Pillamangalam Village for meeting his family and agricultural expenses while he and the said Rama Konar were in India. Subsequently, he went to Singapore and Rama Konar also went there. In Singapore the defendant executed a promissory note on 22nd October, 1962 affixing Indian stamp and agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at 6 per cent per annum. In spite of repeated demands, the said amount remained unpaid. Rama Konar having assigned the promissory note to the plaintiff on 1st August, 1964 the present suit has come to be filed.3. In the written statement, the defendant denied the borrowing and the executing of the promissory note...
P.R. Sriramulu and anr., Vs. the Registrar, High Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1975
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ390
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The Supreme Court in Government of Madras v. Zenith Lamps : [1973]2SCR973 , allowed certain appeals from a common judgment of this Court, to which one of us was a party and by which the ad valorem flat rate of levy made by Article 1, Schedule I to the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955) in its application to the High Court which was adopted by Rule 1 in Appendix I relating to the High Court-fees Rules 1933 as amended, was struck down as invalid and unconstitutional. This Court held that Court-fees was not a tax, but a fee as normally understood. The Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State which was sworn to by one Mr. Kelu Eradi, a Joint Secretary, showed that, according to the figures for 1954-55 and for certain subsequent years, the State was deriving a profit out of Court-fee collected over the expenditure in respect of civil Courts and Administration of Justice; but a supplemental counter-affidavit for the Government and sworn to by ...
Swarnathachi Vs. the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, K. Atmanatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad83; (1975)2MLJ477
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. A small piece of land in Yadayamudayan village, in Pattukkottai Talrk, was acquired by the Government for purposes contemplated by the Madras Irrigation Works (Construction of Field Bothies) Act, 1959 The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made after completing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act. But it turns out that the acquisition was made on the full contribution basis and the entire money for the acquisition was collected from the party who stood to be benefited by the acquisition for purposes of irrigation. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, from which the appeal arises, was to quash the land acquisition proceedings on the ground that the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with; that is to say that no contribution was made from public funds. But the petition was dismissed on the ground that full recovery by the Collector was authorised by the Madras Ir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›