Chennai Court August 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.
Smt. Chandravalli Bai Purshotham Dass Vs. Poonamchand Mittalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad65; (1976)1MLJ89
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Rent Controller Appellate Authority certainly has exceeded its limit in the exercise of its jurisdiction and has chosen to by pass the well accepted principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court and which itself has stood the test of time for a considerable time. The petitioner landlady wanted the respondent to vacate the portion of the building in 202, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras for the avowed purposes of demolition and reconstruction of the same. The petition was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 herein after referred to as the Act. The Rent Controller rightly ordered eviction. On appeal the appellate authority by a cavalier reasoning but without applying the well--established law of the State as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court has reversed the same and allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller for a disposal of the same in the light of the observati...
Thangam Alias Palanichamy Chettiar Vs. Shanmugham Alias Palanichamy Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ355
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal and the short facts are as follows: The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 constituted members of a joint family. The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant (since deceased). The first defendant was the brother of the second defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are the other brothers of the first defendant and defendants 5 to 9 are the sons of the third defendant. The appellant filed O.S. No. 9 of 1943 for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the plaint A and B schedule properties and for the management of the C schedule temple and its properties in turns between himself, second defendant, first defendant and defendants 3 to 9 for a period of two years by turns and for accounts in respect of the income. A decree was passed on 31st March, 1944. It is with reference to Clause 3 of the decree concerning the schedule, the entire dispute has arisen. That clause reads as follows : 'The...
T. N. Linga Gounder Vs. N. Kappa Gowder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ363
S. Mohan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant before me. The short facts relating to this Second Appeal are as follows:2. The present suit O.S. No. 24 of 1961 was preferred before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ootacamund, for a declaration of the plaintiff's title and also for recovery of possession 50 cents (northern half of Survey No. 22/2). The case of the plaintiff is that Lakshmi Ammal was the original owner and that the properties devolved on her granddaughter, Girjammal, as stridhana heir and from whom he purchased under Exhibit A-1 dated 29th November, 1957 and notwithstanding this valid purchase by this plaintiff, the first defendant has been in continuous wrongful possession of the property. Hence the suit.3. In the defence of the first defendant, it was contended that Rangiah the husband of Lakshmi Ammal, was the real owner who sold under Exhibit B-6 the entire property of one acre covered by Survey No. 22/2 in favour of Kapini Gowder from whom the first defendant had...
K. Ramachandran Chettiar Vs. G. Lakshminarayanaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ107
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. A.S. No. 126 of 1975 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 980 of 1966 and A.S. No. 774 of 1970 is against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 5594 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant in both the matters is one and the same, he being the solo defendant in both the suits. The respondent in both the appeals is also one and the same jDerson, being the plaintiff in the two suits, which were tried jointly.2. The plaintiff (respondent) is no other than the father-in-law of the defendant (appellant). They entered into a registered lease agreement as per the original of Exhibit A-1, dated 9th November, 1959 under which the defendant became a lessee under the plintiff cf the building bearing Door No. 1-A, Ponnappa. Chetti Lane, Triplicate, Madras, with running an oil mill. The document describes the building in one schedule and. under the heading schedule relating to 1 machinery gives the details of the items 1 of machinery etc., give...
Seethalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. Minor S. Ramesham (Rameshan) Adopted ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ30
S. Natarajan, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment of the Additional District Judge of Madurai in A.S. No. 390 of 1972, wherein he affirmed the judgment of the trial Court in all respects except as regards the declaration of title and delivery of possession of item No. 24 of the suit properties. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross objections to get relief in respect of item No. 24 also.2. The genesis of this unfortunate litigation between close relations was the posthumous adoption of the plaintiff as the son of the Srinivasa Iyengar who died on 6th September, 1961. Srinivasa Iyengar had no surviving male issue and had only three daughters of whom, the third respondent was the second, the other two being the appellants herein. It would appear that Srinivasa Iyengar was desirous of adopting the plaintiff even during his lifetime, but the parents of the plaintiff were initially reluctant to give the boy in adoption, for at that time, they had no oth...
Krishnasamy Nadar and ors. Vs. Subbayya Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ151
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. One Ammamuthu Ammal executed a will on 28th April, 1958 in respect of her properties. Briefly stated, in the will, she gave the properties covered by the present suit, to one Vitoba, the foster daughter, absolutely, after her life-time and after the life-time of her husband Govindaraju Chettiar. She died soon thereafter. The properties covered by the suit were to be in the management of her husband, Govindaraju Chettiar. The legatee, Vitoba was also to look after the said Govindaraju Chettiar during his lifetime. Govindaraju Chettiar is said to be presently living in a place called Seychelles. Where this place is, is not clear. Under the will, this place is referred to as being near Mahe But, anyway, this need not deter further consideration of the facts of this case.2. Govindaraju has got two agents in whose favour he has given power-of-attorney They are Kumarasami and Appa(sic)urai Chettiar respectively. The plaintiff as a lessee having executed a document in...
G. Muthuvel Pillai Vs. Hazarath Syed Sha Mian Sakkab Kadhiri Thakal, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad276; (1976)1MLJ332
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This case illustrates how very resourceful a judgment-debtor could be and ingenuously set at naught the valid orders of Court, including a compromise decree. Undaunted by the adverse judgments right from 1963, the judgment--debtor has been making repeated onslaughts under the umbrage of some technical plea or other and thereby has been preventing the decree-holder from realising the fruits of the decree.The facts relating to the civil miscellaneous second appeal are as follows:2. The first defendant in O.S. No. 30 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Thanjavur, and respondent in the Execution Petition, is the appellant. O.S. No. 30 of 1962 was a suit filed by the plaintiff, Hazarath Syed Sha Mian Sakkab Kadhiri Thakal, represented by its Trustee, for the recovery of the vacant possession from defendants 1 and 2, after removing the superstructure put up thereon. The case of the plaintiff was that the property was leased out in favour of defendants 1 ...
The Velraveli Weavers' Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad117; (1976)1MLJ13
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 249 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy at all. The respondent herein was employed as a clerk in the appellant-society from 1951 and his appointment was made permanent in 1952. On 23rd January, 1957, he was served with a notice dated 7th January, 1957 terminating his service with effect from 12th December, 1956. Thereupon he instituted a suit against the appellant herein in O.S. No. 284 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the District Munsi of Erode for a declaration that his dismissal by the appellant-society was illegal, for a mandatory injunction directing the appellant-society to reinstate him in the old post as a clerk, for arrears of pay up to the date of suit with interest thereon and for future salary from the date of suit till reinstatement of the respondent and for other incidental reliefs. The trial Court passed a decree declaring that the dism...
L. Mahadeviah and Sons and ors. Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ125
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 69 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund arc the appellants herein aid the appeal itself lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent instituted the suit on the foot of an. equitable mortgage, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest which amounted to Rs. 62,466.10 p. On 24th May, 1967, admittedly, the appellants executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent hereira for the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 undertaking to pay interest 'at 5 per cent over the Reserve Bank of India rate rising and falling with a minimum of 11 per cent per annum with quarterly rests' One of the points that appears to have been urged on behalf of the appellants before the trial Court was that the rate of interest was excessive. The trial Court considered this question and held thac 11 per cent interest per annum with quarterly rests was excessive and 11 per cent interest per annum with half-yearly...
United Wire Ropes Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1975
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ226Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner-company has a factory in the State of Maharashrta with sales offices at Calcutta, Madras and New Delhi. The second respondent was employed on 8th July, 1967 as sales officer in charge of the Madras office of the petitioner-company with effect from 1st July, 1967, subject to certain terms and conditions on a salary of Rs. 600 per month. On 9th January, 1971 the petitioner terminated the services of the second respondent with effect from 10th January, 1971, offering to him one month's salary in lieu of notice. Against the said order of termination, the second respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, herein after referred to as the Act. In that appeal the second respondent alleged that the termination of his services was not for a reasonable cause, and that the termination was a colourable exercise of power, for an alleged misconduct in respect of which no enquiry has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »