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.
V.C. Kadiruvelu Vs. Sub-collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ303
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Thantoni Panchayat Union. The said Panchayat Union consists of 26 members out of which 21 are elected from the Panchayats and 5 are nominated.2. On 22nd August, 1975, One Karuppanna Gounder, a member, of the Panchayat Union, along with another member presented a notice of intention signed by 19 members, out of the total strength of 26 proposing to move a no-confidence motion against the petitioner under Section 153(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. The said notice also contained various charges against the petitioner in respect of which the no-confidence motion was intended to be moved. Later, on 24th August, 1975, the respondent, before whom a notice of intention to move the motion of no-confidence was presented, had communicated the said statement of charges along with the motion signed by 19 members, to the petitioner calling for his reply to the said charges within a week from the date of the receipt of his lett...
Thomas Vs. Victor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ5
S. Mohan, J.1. The 8th defendant is the appellant in the second appeal. The short facts are as follows:2. The father of the plaintiff, Vedamani Nadar was the owner of 28 cents, while. the father of defendants 2 and 3 was the owner of another 22 cents. Both of them jointly executed a mortgage deed under Exhibit A-5, dated 10-4-1107 (M.E.) in favour of the first defendant. In Exhibit A-5, it was undertaken to deal with the prior mortgage Exhibit A-1, dated 3-2-1076 (M.E.), which prior mortgage was executed by the predecessors in title of the mortgagor's principal under Exhibit A-5 in favour of one Poruthiyudayan. The mortgagee Poruthiyudayan, died leaving behind 5 sons. On 7-4-1093 (M.E.), under Exhibit A-2, the mortgagor executed a purakadam deed in favour of the 4 sons of Poruthiyudayan. It is only after these transactions that the mortgagors executed Exhibit A-5 directing the redemption of the prior mortgages under Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The first defendant paid 2,400 fanams, towards t...
The Management of the Hindu (Kasturi and Sons United) and K.R. Venkate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ66
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In exericse of the powers confer ed on them by Section 9 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act XLV of 1955), as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Central Government constituted a Wage Board by a notification datedl2th November, 1953, for the purpose of fixing or revising the rates of wages in respect of working journalists in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Wage Board consisted of representatives of the employers in relation to newspaper establishments, working journalists and independent persons. On receipt of the recommendations of the Wage Board, the Government of India made an order under Section 12 of the Act and it was notified on 27th October, 1967. By virtue of the provisions of Section 13, on the coming into operation of the order of the Central Government under Section 12, every working journalist became entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the rates ...
H.M. Kari Gowder Vs. S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ191
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris atOotacamund combined the two original suits, O.S. Nos. 222 of 1966 and 152 of 1968, and rendered a common judgment. It is not seriously disputed that though not expressly but by implication at least the two suits are connected. The parties agreed that the evidence recorded in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 may be taken as evidence in the other suit as well and reference to the parties in this judgment will, therefore, be with reference to O.S. No. 222 of 1966. A.S. No. 295 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Court in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 and A.S,. No. 294 of 1970 is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 152 of 1968. The defendant in O.S. No. 222 of 1966 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 152 of 1968 (one H. M. Kari Gowder) is the appellant in both the appeals.2. We shall now trace the relevant facts independently in each of the suits and whenever necessary the collective facts in both the s...
The State of Madras Represented by the District Collector of Madurai V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ410
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The suit, which gives rise to this second appeal by the defendant, was filed by two plaintiffs for recovery of possession, of the plaint schedule property from the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Madurai and for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,000 for alleged wrongful demolition of the building that stood on that property.2. One Dr. Venkatarama Iyer, who owned lands in R.S. Nos. 260 to 264, had an existing source of water supply from sluice No. 4 of Sakulam fed by the Periyar system. He and his relative desired that they should get direct supply of water from the Periyar channel distributory No. 3. He therefore moved the Public Works Department for the purpose of getting the change in the water supply. This involved the acquisition of certain lands measuring about 6 cents in R.S. No. 286/2 lying in Sennagarampatti Village belonging to the plaintiffs. The Government issued the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the 6th of Dece...
State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tiruchirapalli Vs. Mah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ501
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. 'Mahatmaji Manavar Unavu Viduthi', the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1967 was originally run under the private management of one K.K. Velusamy Udayar. In course of time, the institution expanded and consequent upon the institution's desire not to run with the then provision by the Government at Rs. 15 per mensem, it requested the Government in the year 1954 for the grant of Government land so that they could put up a decent building thereon for the purpose of running a hostel for the depressed classes. Then the management was asked to register the society under the Societies Registration Act so that they could avail themselves of the public grants which the Government would make in such circumstances. Accordingly, on 12th March, 1955, the plaintiff-society was registered and Mr. K.K. Velusamy Udayar was elected as the Secretary and Manager of that society. After registration, the society pursued its request for the grant of land and also for a loan to put up a de...
Durairaju Vs. Neela and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1507
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This petition is directed against the order made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, under Section 488 Cri. P. C. in M. C. No. 42 of 1974 on his file directing to pay a sum of Rs. 30 per mensem to the second respondent herein (aged 1 year 3 months) as maintenance from the date of his order and the said amount is to be paid to the first respondent herein, the mother and guardian of the second respondent.2. According to the first respondent, the revision petitioner married her and the second respondent was born to him out of the lawful wedlock. The first respondent filed the petition claiming maintenance for herself and for the minor child, the second respondent, on the ground that the revision petitioner has refused to maintain them. The first respondent who was the petitioner before the trial court examined two witnesses including herself. P.W. 1 is a clerk in Kovilpatti Municipality in charge of maintenance of birth and death registers. He...
Thiruvalanjuli Vaidyalingam Pillai Charities, Represented by Its Trust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ185
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this revision petition, Mr. Raman raises an interesting point in the first instance, whether the Court can, on an application by a descendant of the author of the trust, modify a scheme in a manner not even asked for by him. On a perusal of the records, I am satisfied that the lower Court acted suo motu rather than primarily on the application made by one of the descendants.2. As early as in 1916, a scheme was framed for Thiruvalanjuli Vaidyalingam Pillai's Charities, in a scheme suit filed for the purpose in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in O.S. Nos. 77 and 78 of 1916. The terms of the Scheme are not in dispute. Inter alia, Clauses 5 and 21 run as follows:Clause 5 : The management of these charities, its affairs and its properties shall vest in a body of 3 trustees, one of whom shall be a brahmin of the Saiva or Smartha sect and the other two caste Hindus of the Saiva sect and they shall be appointed by the Court from the permanent res...
State of Madras by the Secretary to Government R.D. and L.A. Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ278
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals are from the orders of Palaniswamy, J., and Ramaprasada Rao, J. By a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act certain pieces of land were sought to be acquired for a public purpose, to wit, for the construction of a mutton and vegetable market. One of the survey numbers sought to be acquired, which both the appeals cover, is R.S. No. 238/IA-IA-IA/1. The description in the notification is as follows:Natham Poramboke, R.S. No. 238-IA-I-A-IA/1, present enjoyers and interested persons: (1) Balakrishna Pillai, son of Andi Pillai, (2) Dhanammal, aged 10, (3) Rajeswari aged 7, (4) Sivapragasam aged 3, (Nos. 2 to 4 minors by guardian father No. 1)-0.13 acre (a thatched tea hotel and one well).Objections were filed by the respondent that the land was not natham poramboke, but belonged to them. But these objections were overruled. There was a declaration under Section 6 on 30th August, 1967 which was published. Thereafter, on 28th May, 1968...
Sri Gopaldas Dwarakadas Family Trust Estate by Its Managing Trustee, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ442
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeal is from an order of Ismail, J., who dismissed in limine the appellant's petition under Article 226 ;of the Constitution of India. Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act of 1961 The appellant is a trust, Sri Gopaldas Dwarakadas Family Trust Estate, represented by its managing trustee. This is governed by a scheme of management settled by Court. Section 10 of the Act relates to the preparation and publication of draft statement' as regards land in excess of the ceiling area. Sub-section (5) of the section lays down the procedures as to publication of the draft statement and service thereof on the persons concerned, the tenants, creditors and all other persons, who, in the opinion of the authorised officer, are interested in the land in which such draft statement relates. The service will require certain things to be done with which aspect we are not at the moment concerned. The rule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »