Chennai Court July 1976 Judgments
Syed Abbas Sahib Vs. Musthiri Begam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad27
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. A Muslim wife who filed an execution petition to execute a money decree obtained by her against her husband in respect of the amount of Mahar due to her from him was resisted on the ground that the husband was an agriculturist and the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance 1975 (now Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1975) is a bar thereto. The learned Dist. Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri did not accept the contention of the husband. Apparently, there was no dispate that the husband was an agriculturist. The only question that arose for consideration was whether Mahar in its original shape or after having merged itself into a decree of court, retains the character of a debt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Act 10 of 1975. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines 'debt' as follows-' 'Debt' means any sum of money which a person is liable to pay under a contract (express or implied) for consideration received and includes rent in cash or kind which a...
Tag this Judgment!The Food Corporation of India, Through the District Manager, Food Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ278
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, who failed therein, is the appellant. The suit was filed by it for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,357.44 with interest and costs alleged to be due from the respondent-defendant company on the following grounds: The defendant is a firm carrying goods by sea and owning a ship named 'Lucky'. The defendant received on board the said ship S.S. Lucky at the port of Bangkok (Thailand) a consignment of 91,600 bags of Thai white rice, special mixture 60% broken packed in single new H.C. gunny bags of uniform size, each bag weighing 99.711 kgs. average net, agreeing to deliver the same in good order and condition to the consignee to order of the President of India, at the Port of Tuticorin. The defendant issued a clean bill of lading dated 22nd November, 1968. The freight for the said consignment was duly paid. The Under-Secretary to the Government of India, representing the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abbas Sahib Vs. Musthiri Begum (Minor) by Next Friend and Father ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ255
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. A Muslim wife who filed an execution petition to execute a money decree obtained by her against her husband in respect of the amount of Mahar due to her from him was resisted on the ground that the husband was an agriculturist and the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 (now Tamil Nadu Act X of 1975) is a bar thereto. The learned District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri did not accept the contention of the husband. Apparently, there was no dispute that the husband was an agriculturist. The only question that arose for considerations whether Mahar in its original shape or after having merged itself into a decree of Court, retains the character of a debt within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Act X of 1975. Section 2 (c) of the Act defines 'debt' as follows:Debt means any sum of money which a person is liable to pay under a contract (express or implied) for consideration received and includes rent in cash or kind which a ...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.M. Sheriff Vs. Ramu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad185; (1977)1MLJ517
1. This appeal is against an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court remitting the suit, O. S. No. 56 of 1969 to the trial court for fresh disposal.2. The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed a suit for a declaration that the revenue sale held on 16-12-1968 in respect of the suit property which belonged to him is void and for an injunction restraining the defendant, the purchaser of the property in that revenue sale, from taking delivery of the property. The plaintiff's case is that he had no arrears of land revenue or loan arrears, that in fact he had paid amounts in excess of the land revenue due by him, that by some mistake the suit property had been sold for recovery of certain alleged arrears of land revenue, that he had no notice of the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, that there was in fact no proclamation regarding the sale of the properties and, therefore, the revenue sale is null and void and not binding on him. In that suit, neither the State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!A.G. Ramachandran and anr. Vs. Shamsunnissa Bivi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad182; (1977)1MLJ482
1. This is an appeal filed by defendants 13 and 16 in O. S. No. 62 of 1968, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, against the order of remand made by the lower appellate court, remitting the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal.2. The respondent herein file the suit for partition and separate possession of half in the suit properties and for recovery of mesne profits for three years before the suit. Her case was that ht eusit properties belonged to her father, one Mohamed Hussain, and that as his daughter by his second wife, she has become entitled to the said half share after his death in 1964. Defendants 1 and 2 are the first and second wives respectively of the said Mohammed Hussain and defendants 3 to 9 and 15 to 17 are the legal representatives of his brothers. Defendants 10 to 14 are the alienees of come of the items of the suit properties.3. The plaintiffs claim was resisted mainly by some of the legal representatives of the brother of Mohamed Hussain and also ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ananthakrishnan Nair (Advocate Receiver) and anr. Vs. Dr. G. Ramakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ98
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Four ejectment suits under the Presidency Towns Small Causes Court Act were filed by the different land owners against a common set of tenants, who were given a lease of vacant land and on which they have put up superstructure and who filed petitions under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act for relief. When these suits were filed 11 petitioners of whom petitioners 4 and 11, who are also defendants 4 and 11 in the ejectment suits were receivers appointed by the High Court in C.S. No. 152 of 1960 on the file of the High Court, Madras. It is common ground that the original lease of the vacant site was in favour of the firm of N.V. Abdullah Sahib. It is also not in dispute that the said firm of which the defendants other than defendant 11 were partners and were conducting the said business put up superstructure of their own even prior to 1954. Due to certain disputes amongst the partners after the death of N.V. Abdullah Sahib, a suit was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Co-operative Sugars Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC195(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. Thepetitioner herein is a sugar mill in Kerala State, it applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for drawing sugarcane from about 3,000 acres Of land in Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks for crushing at its mills in Kerala. The Government of Tamil Nadu granted the per- mission subject to certain conditions. Thereafter the petitioner-sugar mill entered into contracts with the growers in Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks for the purchase of sugarcane. One of the forms of the agreement had been produced before us. According to the terms contained in the agree- ment, the cane shall be delivered at the factory premises of the petitioner herein and the petitioner shall pay the grower the statutory or controlled or Government minimum price for the accepted sugarcane after inspection and weighment subject only to deduction of any advance, mutually agreed to in writing between the grower and the occupier, prior to such delivery. For the purpose of purchasing the sugarcane so contracted f...
Tag this Judgment!Amirtham Kudumban Vs. Sornam Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ1
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal comes by way of reference from Gokulakrishnan, J. The question referred to this Full Bench is, 'whether a transferee from a minor, after he attained majority, can file a suit to set aside the alienation made by the minor's guardian or the said right is one to be exercised only by the minor?2. The facts of the case on which the question falls for determination may be briefly set out. The suit property, a piece of land of an extent of 1 acre 12 cents in the village of Vettivayal, Thanjavur District, originally belonged to one Veerammal, who purchased the same in the year 1948. Veerammal had a daughter by name Kaliammal. Veerammal died a few months after the purchase of the suit property leaving behind her surviving her minor daughter Kaliammal and her husband, Kandayya. Subsequent to Veerammal's death, Kandayya married again. Kaliammal was then a minor. She left her father's house to reside with her maternal grand-father who was protecting and ma...
Tag this Judgment!Amirtha Kudumban Vs. Sornam Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad127
1. This second appeal comes by way of reference from Gokulakrishnan J. The question referred to this Full Bench is: "Whether a transferee from a minor, after he attained majority, can file a suit to set aside the alienation made by the minor's guardian or the said right is one to be exercised only by the minor?"2. The facts of the case on which the question falls for determination may be briefly set out. The suit property, a piece of land of an extent of 1 acre 12 cents in the village of Vettivayal, Thanjavur Dist., originally belonged to one Veerammal, who purchased the same in the year 1948. Veerammal had a daughter by name Kaliammal. Veerammal died a few months after the purchase of the suit property leaving behind her surviving her minor daughter Kaliammal and her husband, Kandayya. Subsequent to Veerammal's death, Kandayya married again. Kaliammal was then a minor. She left her father's house to reside with her material grandfather which was protecting and maintaining her during h...
Tag this Judgment!D. Govindaswamy Vs. the Assistant General Manager, (Admn.), Indian Pos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ454
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of Mohan, J., dismissing the appellant's petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent, dated 20th May, 1976 as communicated by the second respondent in his order, dated 28th May, 1976.2. The appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk at Works Accounts Section Office of the General Manager, Madras Telephones. He was served with a charge-sheet, dated 5th March, 1975, stating that it was proposed to hold an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. An enquiry was Started and the appellant requested for the assistance of S. Chandrasekaran, an Upper Division Clerk in the Avadi Telephone Exchange, for presenting his case. Chandrasekaran was assisting the appellant in the enquiry which commenced on 21st August, 1975. Two witnesses were examined by the Department and the third witness, P.K.S. Manian, who is stated to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »