Chennai Court January 1976 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.
T.S. Rajagopal Vs. M.N. Saraswathy Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ8
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This is a very unfortunate case. Though the Rent Controller gave an order for eviction on the ground that the tenant defaulted in the payment of two months rent, yet he did not correctly bear in mind the principles governing such circumstances. Factually, he found that the landlady accepted rents though sent in lump sums and without regard to regularity as provided for in the statute. But he would conclude that that circumstance by itself cannot be misunderstood as a permanent condonation of such irregularity on the part of she tenant. The Appellate Authority after finding once again that the delayed money orders sent by the tenant were accepted by the landlady without a demur also expressed the view that a conclusion that a tenant in such circumstances should be characterised as a person who has committed wilful default is not an automatic one and that should again he weighed in juxtaposition to the circumstances of each case. He, therefore, allowed the a...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. English Electric Company of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC50(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent-assessees are dealers in electrical goods. In their return for the assessment year 1965-66, they claimed exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 1,53,502.19 on the ground that they are canteen sales. They also claimed to deduct from the taxable turnover a sum of Rs. 4,673.46 on the ground that they represent sales return. These are the two items in dispute in this tax revision case and, therefore, it is not necessary to set out any other facts relating to the assessment. In respect of the canteen sales, the assessing officer and the appellate authority in the view that the canteen itself is run by the assessees and not by the employees on a co-operative basis and that, therefore, not liable to be exempted, included the same in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessees on the strength of the decision of this court in Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Thirumagal Mills Limited [1967] 2...
Muniyandi Vs. Rajangam Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Mad287; (1976)1MLJ344
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question in this case is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a particular person is a cultivating tenant or not under Madras Act X of 1969. A suit was instituted for deciding that question, which was dismissed on the ground that Section 16-A barred the civil Court's jurisdiction to decide that matter. But any appeal against that order succeeded with a direction that the matter should be disposed of afresh. The present appeal is against the order of remand by the lower appellate Court. When the matter came before N. S. Ramaswami, J., in the first instance, he felt that the question as to how far the provisions of Madras Act X of 1969 oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the question whether a particular party is a cultivating tenant or not, was an important one which would arise in several litigations. On that view, he gave notice to the Advocates' Association., and Bar Association and desired that the matter should be decid...
Champalal Sowear Vs. A.V. Rajaloo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Mad308; (1976)1MLJ347
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This revision illustrates how recalcitrant the tenant could be. An order of exemption was passed in G.O. Ms. No. 3397, dated 25th September, 1969 on the application of one Thirumathi V. Alamelu Ammal in respect of the premises No. 8, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil Street, Mylapore forming subject-matter of the present revision from the operation of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960). Thereupon O.S. No. 7619 of 1974 was filed before the City Civil Court (6th Assistant Judge) Madras for recovery of possession. Pending suit the landlady (V. Alamelu Ammal) died on 12th March, 1975. Thereafter, I.A. No. 7249 of 1975 was taken out to bring on record petitioners 1 to 6, viz., the husband and other relations as legal representatives. It was contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the exemption was granted in favour of the deceased-plaintiff (V. Alamelu Ammal) and therefore the cause of action did not survive to enable th...
Workmen of Madras Flying Club Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ428Mad
Mohan, J.1. An interesting question, which defies exactness, viz., as to the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arises for consideration in this writ petition. The short facts are as follows:2. By G.O.R. No. 2887 (Labour) dated 30th December, 1968, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred to the Additional Labour Court, Madras, the industrial dispute which arose between the workmen (the writ petitioner) and the management of the Madras Flying Club Limited, for adjudication.3. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that there are about 39 employees in the organisation, that there was a prior gratuity scheme in force from 1948 to 1952, which was discontinued later, and hence, a gratuity scheme should be introduced.4. The management of the Madras Flying Club Limited (the second respondent in the writ petition) in an elaborate counter contended that though there was a gratuity scheme in force earlier, still, as per the directions of the Director-Gener...
The Workmen Employed in Madras Flying Club Limited represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ99
S. Mohan, J.1. An interesting question, which defies exactness, viz., as to the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arises for consideration in this writ petition. The short facts are as follows:2. By G.O.R.No. 2887 (Labour), dated 30th December, 1968, the Government of Tamil Nadu referred to the Additional Labour Court, Madras, the Industrial Dispute which arose between the workmen (the writ petitioner) and the management of the Madras Flying Club limited for adjudication.3. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that there are about 39 employees in the organisation, that there was a prior Gratuity Scheme in force from 1948 to 1952, which was discontinued later, and hence a Gratuity Scheme should be introduced.4. The Management of the Madras Flying Glub Limited (the second respondent in the writ petition) in an elaborate counter contended that though there was a Gratuity Scheme in force, earlier, still, as per the directions of the Director-Gen...
C. Sundaram Vs. V.T. Abdul Ghani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad122
1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant to canvass the correctness of the decree for ejectment passed against him by the appellate Judge in reversal of the dismissal of the suit by the trial Judge. the only question for consideration in this appeal is whether receipt of rent by the respondent-landlord subsequent to his issuing a notice (Ex. A-6) of termination of tenancy would amount to waiver as known to law, and would stand in the way of the action for ejectment not preceded by another valid notice to quit.2. The brief facts which require to be noticed for considering the case on hand are as follows: The respondent as owner of Door No. 189, Raja Street, Walajabad, leased it out to the appellant for a period of 11 months for a certain rent. There is some dispute about the quantum of rent, but we are not concerned with that in this appeal. The lease was entered into on 10-9-1964. The leased property consisted of a front portion having a flour-mill therein and another portion...
Thippa Soundararajan Vs. Thimma Venkataraman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ466
A. Vardarajan, J.1. The first defendant, who-failed in both the Courts below, is the appellant. The respondents filed the suit for partition claiming one-fourth share in, the suit properties.2. There is no dispute that the suit properties belonged originally to three brothers - Thimma Venkataraman, Thimma Ramaswami and Thimma Rangaswami. Venkataraman had two sons, Krishnaswamy and Rajaopal. The respondents (plaintiffs 1 to 3) are the sons of Krishnaswamy. Ranga swamy, the third defendant, is the son of Rajagopal. Rangaswami had two sens, Venka,tachalapathi and Venkatayyan. Saraswathi, the fourth defendant, is the widow of Venkatachalapathi. Radha, Vardhani and Sarojini, defendants 5 to 7 respectively, are the daughters of Venkatayyan. The second defendant, Nachar-ammal, is the daughter of Rangaswami.3. The case of the respondents was that there was a partition between Krishnaswami, Rajagopal, Venkachalapathy and Venkatayyan under Exhibit A-1 dated 25th' July, 1919 in which the suit pro...
B. Gopalaswamy Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ368
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the second respondent dated 1st November, 1974 by which the services of the petitioner as Section officer (redesignated as Junior Engineer) were terminated with effect from 28th November, 1974.2. The post of a Section officer in the Public Works Department of the Union Territory of Pondicherry is a class III post and is filled either by promotion from among the categories of Draftsman Grades I and II who had practical experience of not less than three years in Public Works Department or by direct recruitment.3. By an advertisement in the English dailies, dated 15th May, 1958, application were called for, for the appointment of a Section officer. The petitioner, who had appeared for the examination in the diploma course in L.C.E. and who was awaiting the results of the examination, applied for the post and he was called for an inte...
R. Ranganathan Vs. Veerakumar Trading Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquida ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1976
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas637(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, passed in E.A. No. 201/74 in E.P. No. 359/1973 in S.C. No. 721 of 1972, whereunder the relief of the official liquidator to hold that the sale held on February 28, 1974, without the leave of the court was void and to direct respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to restore to the petitioner the assets purchased by them in the sale held on February 28, 1974, was granted.2. The short facts are as follows : Veerakumar Trading and Chit Funds Private Limited was directed to be wound up by an order of this court passed in Company Petition No. 13/1973 on August 18, 1973. Prior to this S.C. No. 721 of 1972 was filed by the revision-petitioner (R. Ranganathan). On December 23, 1972, he attached the immovable properties belonging to the company under liquidation. The small cause suit resulted into a decree on February 22, 1973. As seen above, the order of winding up was passed on August 18,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »