Chennai Court September 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.
The All India State Bank of India Supervisory Staff Federation Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ305
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the All India State Bank of India Supervisory staff Federation for the issue of a writ of manadamus directing the State Bank of India to implement fort with certain draft rules which are said to have been agreed to between the petitioner Federation and the State Bank of India.2. According to the petitioner the staff of the State Bank of India had been classified into two classes : (1) officers--supervising staff; and (2) the rest popularly known as award staff. While the former category is generally governed by their individual contract of service with the Bank, the working conditions of the latter category are governed by the Sastri Award, Desai Award and subsequent agreements arrived at between the management of the State Bank and the award staff.3. To govern the service conditions of the former category, certain rules had been framed by the State Bank of India in the year 1955 in pursuance of Section 43 of the State Bank o...
V.S. Ahmed Thambi Maraicayar Vs. Revathi Stores by Its Partners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ307
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord sought to evict him on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation. The building was purchased by the landlord in 1970 while the tenant is in possession of the premises from 21st October, 1959. After the landlord purchased the building in 1970 he filed two petitions for eviction of the tenant one under Section 10(3)(c) and another under 10(3)(a)(i) the first relating to non-residential portion and the second to residential portion. The Courts below found that the landlord had made out a case and ordered eviction. In this revision petition on behalf of the tenant, it is submitted that the landlord is not competent to maintain this application as the landlord which is a partnership firm is no longer in existence as one of the partners is dead. Secondly, it was contended that two portions are occupied by the tenant, one for non-residential purposes and another for residential purposes and one applic...
Kandaswamy Goundar Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ380
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by P. Kandaswamy Gounder against whom proceedings were taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore. By his order dated 20th July, 1973 the Authorised Officer found that Kandaswamy Gounder was possessed of a surplus extent of 3.560 acres. The petitioner in this Court Kandaswamy Goundar objected to the Authorised Officer finding a surplus of 3.560 acres on the ground that his mother Srimathi Ponnammal was entitled to a share in his father's property and the same has to be excluded from his holdings and that the suit filed by his mother against him for declaration of her rights is pending in the civil Court. It may be mentioned that the father of Kandaswamy Goundar and husband of Ponnammal died on 2nd November, 1948. After the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 the mother became entitled to half share in the separate property of her husband along with her son. Subsequently the suit filed by the mother was decreed on 12t...
Subramania Pillai Vs. Masterly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad303; (1976)1MLJ341
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent by the plaintiff turns on whether there was a substantial representation in the Court proceedings resulting in a sale in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against Chempakaraman Pillai. For the purpose of this Appeal, it is enough to say that the property in question was subject to a usufructuary mortgage executed on 9-4-1100 M.E., and this was followed by a simple mortgage executed by the owner on 3-10-1101 M.E. The second mortgage was enforced through Court, but, before the decree was executed, the mortgagor had died. One Lakshmi was impleaded as his legal representative in the execution proceedings. Eventually, there was a sale in favour of the assignee-decree holder, who got a sale certificate for himself. The present appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of the usufructuary mortgage brought by the purchaser of the equity of redemption from the heirs of the original mortgagor. Raghavan, J., who heard the second ap...
The State of Madras Represented by the Chief Secretary to the Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ433
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeal comes from an order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., allowing a petition to quash a demand made by the Collector of Coimbotore on 2nd April, 1970 on the respondent to pay seigniorage fees for transport of grevilla trees from the Kottur Village on the Anamalais, Coimbatore District. An extent of 5851 acres of land in Block Nos. 30, 31, 43 and 45 in that village was assigned to the respondent, the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, by an order of Government dated 10th May, 1929 for cultivation of, plantation products. The assignment was subject to certain conditions specified. One of the conditions was that the land shall be used only for the cultivation of coffee, tea, cocoa, cinchona, cardamoms pepper, rubber or any other product that the Government may by special orders recognise as a plantation product, or for the erection of any buildings or constructing any roads thereon, which may be necessary for effecting and supervising such cultivation and prepa...
S. Saroja Vs. K. Arumugham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ361
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. She is the grand-daughter of one Ponni Mandakkattal and daughter of Subbammal. Subbammal is the sister of the first respondent Arumugam, who is the husband of the second respondent. Radha. The suit was filed for declaration of the appellant's title to the suit property, which is a tiled building stated to be situate on 21/8 cents of land in Survey No. 3030/3-A of Vadassery Village and for recovery of possession thereof from the respondents. According to the appellant, the suit property belonged originally to her maternal grandmother, Ponni Mandakkattal, and was inherited by Subbammal on her death and that she inherited the property on the death of Subbammal in 1960. Ponni Mandakkattal was the wife of one Kolappan.2. The defence was that the house property is situate in Survey No. 3144 and not in Survey No. 3030/3-A and belonged to Kolappan, the father of the f...
Bharat Trading (international) Ltd. by Power-holder A.P. Kaimal and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad393; (1976)2MLJ414
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The 6th and the 7th defendants who are the creditors of a quandom joint family consisting of one Palavesam Pillai, the first defendant and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 17 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinates Judge, Tuticorin are the appellants. It is common ground that defendants 6 and 7 supplied on credit senna leaves to the first defendant who continued the family business of dealing in such leaves and in the course of such dealings, the first defendant as such manager of the joint family, became indebted. The result was that the 6th defendant filed O.S. No. 30 of 1967andthe 7th defendant filed O.S. No. 29 of 1967 as is seen from Exhibits B-19 and B-17 and obtained orders for attachment before judgment attaching all the family properties which devolved on the members of the family of Palavesam Pillai. Palavesam Pillai died on 14th September, 1958 as the father-member of the joint family and left behind him the first defendant, his son, who was the surviving ...
The Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner Vs. C. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ280
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. We agree with Mudaliyar, J., that the Commissioner of the Corporation did not possess the power to make the order which he did on 26th May, 1972 directing recovery from the respondent, a tax collector of a sum of Rs. 9,580.48, which represented his share of the property tax which he neglected, according to the Commissioner, to collect in spite of instruction and indeed allowed the same to become time barred. A memorandum dated 12th October, 1971 was served on the respondent which mentioned the still remaining arrears of tax and the fact that they became time-barred, and called upon him to furnish his report within three days. As he failed to comply with this requirement, on 30th December, 1971, the following charges were framed, by the Revenue Officer:1. That they have (another also was involved) failed to carry out the instruction contained in the, circular and memo, cited;2. That due to their utter neglect, inordinate delay has been caused and a huge amount of R...
P. Subbia Naidu Vs. Vellachami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ378
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed-the suit against him for recovery of Rs. 1,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. The instances of malicious prosecution relied on by the plaintiff were three in number. The first was in C.C. No. 163 of 1967 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai for offences under Sections 435 and 324, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution in this case was launched by the predecessor-in-office of the defendant. In this prosecution which Was continued subsequently by the defendant, the plaintiff was acquitted. The second instance of prosecution was in M.G. No. 592 of 1967. It was to have the plaintiff bound over for good behaviour. No preliminary order was passed as against the plaintiff as contemplated by Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there were no sufficient materials to proceed against the plaintiff. The action was thus straightaway drop...
M.C. Manickam Chettiar Vs. the Madras City Municipal Corporation by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1975
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ371
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 4133 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,450, as damages under the following circumstances. The respondent, namely, the Madras City Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner, hereinafter called the Corporation, is the owner of the swimming pool known as the 'Royal Swimming bath' at Peoples Park. The right to collect the fees from the persons using the pool was auctioned for the period of one year from 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969 on 17th January, 1968. The appellant was the highest bidder for Rs. 20,000. According to the respondent, the same was accepted by the Commissioner by his letter dated 18th March, 1968, addressed to the appellant. The plaint proceeded to state that one of the conditions in the auction notice is that if the officer conducting the auction does not return the bid deposit, the bidder must keep the bid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »