Chennai Court March 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.
A. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ320
S. Suryamurthy, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein.2. The petition was filed by the landlords, Shanmugham, Saravanan, Sundaramurthy and Palani, for eviction of the tenant, Subramaniam Chettiar from the premises, bearing door No. 224/226, Rasappa Chetty Street, Madras-3 on the ground that they required the premises for their own use. The building is a non-residential building. The tenant is said to be carrying on certain business in the said premises. The building originally belonged to one Arumugham Chettiar, grandfather of the respondents herein. By a deed dated 5th March, 1948, Arumugham Chettiar created a Trust and appointed his daughter-in-law, Dharmavardhani Ammal and Shanmugham, his eldest grandson as Trustees. The Trustees were directed to manage and maintain the properties and defray the expenses of the educati...
Seth Dhanoomal Parsaram Vs. P. Kuppuraj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad274; (1977)1MLJ86
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first and the second defendants in O. S. No. 67 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore are the appellants in A. S. No. 520 of 1972. This is an appeal filed in forma pauperis, After the presentation of the appeal, the second appellant dies and the learned counsel for the first appellant has filed a memo to that effect and stated that he is one of the sons of the second appellant and he may be recognised as his legal representative. He would also say that he might be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased second appellant as representative of his estate. We accept the memo.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the foot of four promissory notes. The borrowing were almost consecutively made by the first defendant as the principal debtor and guaranteed by his father the second defendant. They were consecutive in the sense that the borrowings were on the 12th, 13th, 16th and 27th of August 1966. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 are t...
P.V. Chinniah Gounder Vs. P. Ponnuswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad138
1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the courts below has come up by way of this second appeal. The short facts are as follows: He has filed O. S. 836 of 1970 before the court of the District Munsif, Kulitalai, for a declaration that he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and also for an injunction. According to him, the suit property is a road poromboke comprised in S.F. 583 situate in Manapparai Town. This was shown as A.B.C.D. in the plaint plan. The plaintiff encroached upon this suit item in about 1949 or 1950 and was running a tea shop. By issue of memos, his right to remain in possession has been recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The portion marked as A.E.F.G., situated on the north of the suit item was a private property of the first defendant, the second defendant being the power of attorney agent of the first defendant. The portion shown as E.B.H.F. is situated north of the suit item and east of A.E.F.G. This portion is a road poromboke...
P.V. Chinniah Goundar Vs. P. Ponnusamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ393
S. Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in both the Courts below has come up by way of this second appeal. The short facts are as follows: He has filed O.S. No. 836 of I97O before the Court of the District Munsif, Kulithalai, for a declaration that he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit property and also for an injunction. According to him, the suit property is a road poramboke comprised in S.F. No. 583 situate in Manapparai Town. This was shown as A.B.C.D., in the plaint plan. The plaintiff encroached upon this suit item in about 1949 or 1950 and was running a tea shop. By issue of B memos., his right to remain in possession has been recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The portion marked as A.E.F.G., situated on the north of the suit item was a private property of the first defendant, the second defendant being the power-of-attorney agent of the first defendant. The portion shown as E.B.H.F., is situated north of the suit item and east of A.E.F.G. This po...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. M. A. Alagappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR1000(Mad)
V. RAMASWAMI J. - The assessee was shareholder of a company called 'Ajax Products Ltd.' which went into voluntary liquidation on 30th October, 1954. At the time of voluntary liquidation, he held 378 and 2/3rd shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each. The liquidator who was appointed to wind up the affairs of the company, sold some of its assets in February, 1955, to a new company and in pursuance of that sale, the shareholders of Ajax Products Ltd. were allotted fully paid up shares of the new company equal in number and face value to the share they held in the old company. Thereafter, the liquidator distributed from time to time various sums to the shareholders out of realisations in respect of the remaining assets. In the year of account, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 8,331 at the rate of Rs. 22 per share. Since the assessee had already received the full value of his original investment in the form of shares in the new company at the very...
C.V. Krishna Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad30
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit (it is called a suit because of convenience) for a direction to the defendant to file the arbitration agreement contained in a contract entered into between himself and the defendant in connection with the supply of an insulated milk tanker made of stainless steel. He also prayed for a reference to an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement, who was to be appointed by the court in this suit so as to decide the disputed matters as between the contracting parties. The suit arose this way. On 26-6-1964, the defendant invited tenders under Ex. A-1, for the supply of the milk tanker and such an invitation made it clear that the price was to be exclusive of sales tax. Under Ex. B-1, dated 29-7-1964, the plaintiff tendered and quoted a price of Rs. 35,000. This was accepted under Ex. B-2 dated 25-8-1964, and the plaintiff was directed to supply the tanker within 60 days from 24-10-1964 and he...
Manilal Gadiya Vs. Mangilal Kesarinath Sewak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad140
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 3782 of 1967 is the revision petitioner herein. He obtained a judgment against the defendants in the suit to the following effect: 'Defendants set ex parte. P.W. 1 examined. Exs. A-1 and A-2 marked, Claim proved. Preliminary decree is passed with costs as prayed for in (a) and (b) of the plaint.' In the decree drafted for the preliminary decree, the Court below has not stated the shares of the respective parties as provided in Form No. 21 of the C.P.C. Hence, the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 5736 of 1974 to direct the office to amend the preliminary decree dated 20-10-1970 in O. S. No. 3782 of 1967 to be in accordance with form No. 21 of C.P.C. The respondents herein opposed this amendment stating that the decree is in accordance with the prayer made in the plaint and the plaintiff is trying to fill up the lacuna in the suit in the guise of a prayer for amendment of the preliminary decree and that the office is correct in drafting the preliminary...
State Vs. T.R.M. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1982
Natarajan, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused for the sale of adulterated turmeric. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, Dharapuram Municipality, inspected the shop of the accused in door No. 84, Big Bazaar, Dharapuram on 26-2-1973 at about 2.30 P. M. and purchased from him, for the purpose of analysis, 600 grams, out of a stock of 6 kilo grams of turmeric, at a cost of Rs. 1.80. The usual formality of packing the sample was gone through. One of the samples sent to the analyst was certified to contain 20% of poisonous lead as against permitted limit of 10%. Consequently, the accused was charged under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Sections 7 (1) and 2 (i) (1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode who tried the case acquitted the accused on the ground that turmeric rhizome, to which category the sample belonged, was not an article of food, and secondly, the accused had stored and exhibited for sale turme...
Sandhi Vinayagar Devastanam, Tirunelveli Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad133
Kailasam, Offg.C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant Sandhivinayagar Devastanam, Tirunelveli, represented by its hereditary trustee against the order of the Inams Abolition Tribunal--Sub-Court, Tirunelveli in R. A. (I.A.T.) 72 of 1970.2. The appellant-devastanam filed a petition before Settlement Tahsildar II, Koilpatti, for grant of a ryotwari patta. He negatived the claim of the appellant-devastanam. The appellant appealed to the Inams Abolition Tribunal where also it failed. Hence this appeal.3. The fact which was found by the court below is that the relevant entries in the Inam Fair Register indicate that this is a case of Devadhayam Inam Grant consisting of both warams. The lower court agreed with the finding of the Settlement Tahasildar on this aspect. In dealing with the question as to who was in possession and enjoyment of the land, the lower court recorded a finding that the respondents were in possession. We are not dealing with this issue as it is not relevant for...
C.V. Krishna Vs. State of Madras by the Commissioner of Milk Productio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ401
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit (it is called a suit because of convention) for a direction to the defendant to file the arbitration agreement contained in a contract entered into between himself and the defendant in connection with the supply of an insulated milk tanker made of stainless steel. He also prayed for a reference to an arbitrator other than the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement, who was to be appointed by the Court in this suit so as to decide the disputed matters as between the contracting parties. The suit arose this way. On 26th June, 1964, the defendant invited tenders under Exhibit A-1 for the supply of the milk tanker and such an invitation made it clear that the price was to be exclusive of sales tax. Under Exhibit B-1 dated 29th July, 1964 the plaintiff tendered and quoted a price of Rs. 35,000. This was accepted under Exhibit B-2 dated 25th August, 1964 and the plaintiff was directed to supply the tanker within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »