Chennai Court November 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.
thellur M. Dharmarajan, Editor, vidivelli, Tamil Daily and ors. Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ22
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This group of writ petitions challenges the validity of certain orders of pre-censorship passed by the censoring authorities on three newspapers. W.P. Nos. 388, 663, 846, 992 and 1909 have been filed in regard to pre-censorship orders directed against a Tamil daily by name 'Murasoli'. in W.P. No. 1909 of 1976 the prayer, as amended, is for quashing (i) a statutory order of the Government of India dated 23rd June, 1976 passed in exercise of its powers under Rule 48 (1) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, and (ii), an order passed by the State Censor on 24th June, 1976 in exercise of his powers under Rule 48(1)(aa) of the Defence of Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. The other writ petitions filed on behalf of 'Murasoli' relate to individual orders of the Censoring Officer in respect of particular matters sought to be published in that daily. Mr. K.K. Venugopal appearing for the petitioner in the batch of writ petitions relating ...
Marimuthu Udayar and ors. Vs. Rajamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ253
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. Since all these proceedings are between the same parties, they can be disposed of together.2. The respondent who is the same in all these cases, filed a suit O.S. No. 339 of 1974on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, against five defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale of certain immovable property, or in the alternative for return of the advance paid by him as also the damages for breach of the contract. The said suit was being resisted by all the defendants. When the suit was ripe for trial, defendants 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act X of 1975 for stay of the suit on the ground that they are entitled to the benefits of the said Act, and therefore, the suit ought to be stayed till the currency of the said Act. That application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the suit being one for specific performance of an agreement for sale or in the alternative for the return of the advance paid as well as dama...
Munusamy Achari Vs. Rajambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad228; (1977)1MLJ371
1. One Govinda Achari of Veeranandhal village, who was possessed of several items of immovable property in that village, died intestate on 26-10-1927, leaving him surviving his widow Parvathiammal and his only daughter Ammakannu Ammal. Parvathiammal died on 2-11-1946. Ammakannu Ammal was married to one Ponnuswami Achari. Ammakannu left her husband's family in the year 1916, and for a number of years thereafter her whereabouts were unknown to the family. In December 1959, the news came that Ammakannu had died on 28-6-1958 in Tirunboodi village. Ammakannu had five children, two sons and three daughters. One son and one daughter died unmarried. One married daughter predeceased her in 1939 leaving four children. This left one daughter and one son, Rajambal and Munuswami Achari, who survived Ammakannu.2. The properties left by Govinda Achari on his death were in the possession and enjoyment of his widow Parvathiammal till her death on 2-11-1946. Thereafter, they were in the possession of Mu...
Mathu Velu Udayar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ117
A.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner held the office of President of the Porasakurichi Panchayat from some time in the year 1965 to the end of July, 1970. The accounts for that period were scrutinised by the auditors appointed under Section 141 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. Numerous irregularities were found to have been committed by him and the auditors reported to the Panchayat that he should be burdened with a sum of Rs. 10,185. The matter was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, who found a sum of Rs.4,718 to be due from the petitioner for the loss caused to the Panchayat by him during his tenure as President of the Panchayat. He issued a certificate under Rule 5(1) of the Rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Clause (xvi-a) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 178 of the said Act in relation to the power of auditors in the matter of surcharge (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). A copy of his certificate accompanied by that of the reasons in support o...
Mrs. Hazara Bai Vs. Mohammed Adam Sait and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ291
N. S. Ramaswamy, J.1. In this originating summons the question is about the interpretation of a particular clause in a settlement deed. The first defendant .who is the brother of the Plaintiff executed the settlement deed dated 1st June, 1963 in favour of the plaintiff. Three items of properties are dealt with in the settlement deed. In items 1 and 2 the plaintiff had an 1/3rd share in her own right. The first defendant had the remaining 2/3rd share. The whole of item 3 belonged to the first defendant. Under the settlement deed, the first defendant gifted his 2/3rd share in items 1 and 2 and the whole of item 3 to the plaintiff and her children. The relevant clause which requires interpretation is in the following terms:That in consideration of the premises the settlor hereby settles and transfers to the settlee for her life without any right of alienation and thereafter on her children both male and female absolutely the properties mentioned in the schedule hereto and that the settlor...
Hayara Bai Vs. Mohammed Adami Sait Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad374
ORDER1. In this originating summons the question is about the interpretation of a particular clause in a settlement deed. The first defendant who is the brother of the plaintiff executed the settlement deed dated 1-6-1963 in favour of the plaintiff. Three items of properties are dealt with in the settlement deed. In items 1 and 2 the plaintiff had a 1/3rd share in her own right. The first defendant had the remaining 2/3rd share. The whole of item 3 belonged to the first defendant. Under the settlement deed, the first defendant gifted his 2/3rd share in items 1 and 2 and the whole of item 3 to the plaintiff and her children. The relevant clause which requires interpretation is in the following terms:'That in consideration of the premises the settlor hereby settles and transfers to the settlee for her life without any right of alienation and thereafter on her children both male and female absolutely the properties mentioned in the schedule thereto and that the settlor has put the settlee...
Thangathammal, Proprietrix, Krishna Vilas Rice Mill Vs. Secretary, Foo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ221
ORDERKoshal, J.1. This petition Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. The petitioner runs a rice-mill in Sirugamani village in Tiruchirapalli Taluk under a licence issued by the District Supply Officer, Tiruchirapalli (hereinafter referred to as the D. S. O.). N. V. Krishnan, respondent No. 3, who is a resident of the same village, also applied to the D.S.O. for the grant of a licence for carrying on rice-milling operations therein. The grant was objected to by the petitioner on the following three grounds:(i) Her rice-mill is already surrounded by three rice-mills in the same village.(ii) The paddy production in the village was insufficient even for the existing rice-mills.(iii) The setting up of a new rice-mill would cause her great loss.The D.S.O. rejected these objections solely on the basis of the observation that 'as per Government Orders (Ms. No. 868, Food Department, dated 6th August, 1970 and Government Memo. No. 26354-A-11/70-4, d...
Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ496
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of headman of village Koneripalayam on a temporary basis in the year 1969 when it fell vacant on the death of the permanent incumbent named Gopal. The appointment was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the R.D.O.), who then called for applications from intending candidates so that a permanent incumbent to the post could be selected. By his order dated 24th May, 1971 the R.D.O. appointed the petitioner to the post on a permanent basis giving him the benefits of Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Village Officers Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which laid down that the Rules would not apply to a person who was holding the post of a village headman either temporarily or permanently on the date when the Rules came into force.2. Respondent No. 3 who was the rival candidate for the post filed an appeal against the order of the R.D.O. before the District Revenue Officer (for shor...
K.M.S. Abdul Hasan Vs. the Tiruvarur Municipality, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ121
C.J.R. Paul, J.1. The appellant is the owner of D or Nos. 58, 16 and 16-A-J, situate in Vijayapuram within the Municipal limits of Tiruvarur. The appellant is living in Door No. 58 and he has rented out Door Nos. 16 and 16-A-1. Till 1st April, 1965, the assessment for Door No. 58 was Rs. 144 and the property tax payable is Rs. 14-89 while the assessment for Door No. 16 was Rs. 840 and the property tax payable for it was Rs. 87-04 and the assessment for Door No. 16-A/l was Rs. 192, and the property tax payable for it is Rs. 19-89. In the month of March 1969 however, the respondent Municipality, issued special notices proposing to increase the assessments, in respect of these three buildings to Rs. 360, Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 840 respectively and to increase the property tax to Rs. 37-30, Rs. 124-34 and Rs. 87-04, respectively. The appellant filed revision petition obejcting to the proposed enhancements but these revisions petitions were dismissed whereupon the appellant filed appeals to the ...
S. Sadasivam Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1976
Reported in: [1979]116ITR438(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. This is a revision petition under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, seeking to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I. T., Madras, dated 11th October, 1972, suo motu revising the order of the Agrl. ITO, Coimbatore, dated 29th June, 1970, and consequential orders passed in the names of the petitioner, his wife and daughter. The petitioner herein was being assessed on the basis of the composition of the tax up to the assessment year 1969-70 of the extent of 28.28 ordinary acres equivalent to 60.02 standard acres. During the assessment year 1970-71, the petitioner, on June 3, 1970, sent a communication to the Agrl. ITO, Coimbatore, stating that as per the registered partition deed dated December 5, 1969, in document No. 3960 of the Joint Registrar of Coimbatore, the lands have been divided as between himself, his wife, Srimathi Hamsavailchena, and his daughter, Miss Renukadevi, and requested that the assessments be modified as ind...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »