Chennai Court January 1976 Judgments
Dharmalinga Mudaliar Vs. N. Mohamed Ebrahim and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad117
1. This appeal and the revision petitions arise out of the claims made regarding a motor accident. The accident took place on 21-12-1967, the motor car bearing registration No. MSY 6929, belonging to Mohamed Ebrahim, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 73 of j1969, was being run as a taxi. The bus MDO 5783 belonging to the first defendant in that suit was the other motor vehicle involved in the accident. It was a head on collision between the two vehicles in which the motor car (MSY 6929) came to be badly damaged. The occupants of the care had been injured. The claim in the suit, out of which A. S. No. 348 of 1972 arises, is made by the owner of the car (taxi) regarding the damage to the vehicle on the ground that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The four revision petitions arise out of four different claim petitions filed by the injured in the said accident.2. The owner of the bus and the insurer thereof who were made parties to the suit as well as claim...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayanan and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver, Tirunelveli and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad171
1. There was one Sankaranarayana Iyer who had two sons by name Sundaram Iyer and Ganapathi Iyer. Sundaram Iyer is the second defendant in the suit and Ganapathi Iyer the third defendant. Ganapathi Iyer has two sons by name Sankaranarayanan and Subramaniam. Sankaranarayanan is the first plaintiff and Subramaniam the minor through his mother and next friend is the second plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition of their (Plaintiff's) one-third share. On 10-11-1961 in I. P. 9 of 1961 defendants 2 and 3 were declared insolvents. The Official Receiver was also, therefore, impleaded as the first defendant in the suit.2. There are tow items of properties set out in the plaint. The first item of the suit properties is ancestral in character. The second item was said to have been purchased by the second defendant from out of the cash left by his father. Defendants 2 and 3 were said to have started an entirely new business with the cash left by their father and contracted debts. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.K. Zafrullakhan Vs. K. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ491
V. Sethuraman, J.1. In the Second Appeal, the only question that arises is whether the suit building is exempted under the provisions of Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The suit property and the adjoining properties on the east and west belong to the plaintiffs. They were originally constructed with mud walls. Since they were in a dilapidated condition, the plaintiffs claimed to have demolished the same and put up new constructions in the month of December, 1966. The defendant became a tenant in respect of one of the shops so put up on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. Originally he was to occupy the property for only one year. But, even after the expiry of the period of one year, the defendant continued to occupy the shop and did not vacate the premises. The plaintiffs claimed that they required the shop for their convenient enjoyment and also for additional accommodation. They pointed out that the entire construction of the property having been com...
Tag this Judgment!S. Dharmalinga Mudaliar Vs. N. Mohamed Ebrahim and anr. and Mallikaarj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ388
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal and the revision petitions arise out of the claims made regarding a motor accident. The accident took place on 21st December, I967. The motor car bearing registration No. MSY 6929 belonging to Mohammed Ebrahim, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 73 of 1969, was being run as a taxi. The bus M.D.O. 5783 belonging to the first defendant in that suit was the other motor vehicle involved in the accident. It was a head-on collision between the two vehicles in which the motor car (MSY 6929) came to be badly damaged. The occupants of the car had been injured. The claim in the suit, out of which A.S. No. 342 of 1972 arises, is made by the owner of the car (taxi) regarding the damage to the vehicle on the ground that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The four revision petitions arise out of four different claim petitions filed by the injured in the said accident.2. The owner of the bus and the insurer there of who were made parties t...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR352(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference three questions have been referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 by the Appellate Tribunal. The first two questions have to be considered in the light of certain common facts and those two questions are first taken up for consideration. They are as follows:'(1) Whether the first year in which the assessee was entitled to relief in respect of the new industrial undertaking was the assessment year 1957-58 or 1958-59 and whether the assessee was entitled to relief in respect of the assessment for 1962-63 under Section 84?(2) Even if the assessee is not entitled to the full relief in respect of 60 Hooker Cells claimed in respect of the assessment for 1962-63 whether it is entitled to relief in respect of the 30 Hooker Cells completed during the previous year for 1958-59 ?'2. The assessee is a public company, carrying on business of manufacture and sale of caustic soda among other chemicals. Caustic soda was being produced by a process...
Tag this Judgment!The Associated Cotton Traders Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ335
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 247 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein. They filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,287-15 from the respondent-defendant viz., the Southern Railway, towards the damages alleged to have been suffered by them due to the loss of cotton caused on account of the alleged negligence and default of duty on the part of the servants of the defendant railway. It was alleged that the first plaintiff despatched 135 bales of full pressed cotton from Washim Railway Station in Madhya Pradesh State to Pulankinar Railway Station in Madras State (now Tamil Nadu) under Railway Receipts Nos. 725059 and 725058 dated 3rd February, 1964 at railway risk, in pursuance of the order placed by the second plaintiff with the first plaintiff. The third plaintiff viz. the Pioneer Fire and General Insurance Co. had covered the said consignments by issuing a policy in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ponniah thevar Vs. Nallayam Perumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ260
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 186 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Periyakulam, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. Admittedly, the suit property of an extent of 1 acre 75 cents belonged to one Annamalai Pillai under a settlement deed, the original of Exhibit A-2, dated 16th December,. 1907 by his natural father Ramaswamy Pillai. After the death of Annamalai Pillai, leaving two widows, viz., Unnamalai Ammal and Veerayee. Veerayee instituted O.S. No. 482 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam for partition of the properties of Annamalai Pillai, impleading Unnamalai Airmal and the son of the natural brother of Annamalai Pillai, viz., the second defendant in this suit. That suit ended in a compromise, as evidenced by Exhibit A-5, dated 6th July, 1935, being the certified copy of the final decree in I.A. No. 1009 of 1933 in O.S. No. 487 of 1927. U...
Tag this Judgment!V. Nataraja Iyer and ors. Vs. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad67
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition and separate possession, attacking the alienations made by the father of the plaintiffs. The five plaintiffs are the sons of Guruswami Iyer, the first defendant in the suit. Vembu Iyer, the 2nd defendant, and Ayyasami Iyer the 3rd defendant, are the elder brothers of the 1st defendant and they are some of the alienees of the properties belonging to the family of the first defendant. It is common case that there had been an oral partition amongst the three brothers, namely, the defendants 1 to 3 in 1943. It is also not in dispute that the first defendant an his five sons (the plaintiffs) constituted a Hindu joint family. It owned certain agricultural lands in Mayuram taluk Thanjavur Dist., to be specific in two villages, namely. Melanallur and Arumozhi Dewan village It also owned two house properties and some lands in Thriuvannamalai. The properties situate in Thiruvannamali are described as Items 1 to 6 in the A schedule to the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Naidu Vs. the Authorised Officer for the Area of North ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ119
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The Revision Petition is by the landowner whose appeal to the Land Tribunal under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, (Madras Act LVIII of 1961) has been dismissed. The revision petitioner claimed exemption in respect of 9.17 ordinary acres of land on the ground that the same is a grazing land. This has been disallowed by the Authorised Officer as Section 74 of the Act has been deleted by the Amending Act XLI of 1971. The revision petitioner also claimed that he had settled the land measuring 13.97 ordinary acres on his nephew by a registered settlement deed dated 26th October, 1971 and that therefore, that land also should not be taken into account in fixing his ceiling area. The Authorised Officer rejected this claim also as the revision petitioner did not produce any evidence in that regard. The appeal to the Land Tribunal having failed this revision petition is filed.2. The Authorised Officer and the Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Bivi and ors. Vs. Sadhakatalla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad215; (1977)1MLJ473
1. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 in O. S. No. 351 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Periyakulam who lost completely before the trial court, but succeeded to some extent before the first appellate court, are the appellants herein. Admittedly, the suit property belonged to one Sulthan Rowther, who died in February 1957. The 11th defendant is the widow of the deceased, while the 12th and 13th defendants are the major sons of the deceased. The plaintiffs are also son and daughter of the deceased, plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors. Under Ex. B-1. dated 27-7-1957, defendants 11 to 13 executed a sale deed of the suit property in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants herein for Rs. 8,000 and in that sale deed the 11th defendant acted as guardian of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit for a declaration that they are entitled to their share in the suit property since the sale deed executed by the defendants 11 to 13 was not binding ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »