Chennai Court March 1977 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.
Sampath Financial Chit Fund (P.) Limited, by Its Managing Director G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ529
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was carrying on business in Chit transactions. In respect of a chit in Group No. 73, Chit No. 11 of the face value of Rs. 4,000 and consisting 20 monthly instalments of Rs. 200 each, the first defendant was a subscriber. Each subscriber had to pay) a monthly instalment of Rs. 200 for 20 months. This chit is what is usually known as 'next auction chit' and each subscriber is entitled to bid at the auction held in each month. As per the general rules whoever has bid at the lowest will be paid the prize amount and the difference between the total amount after deducting the commission of 5 per cent payable to the plaintiff and the prize amount is divided among the subscribers as dividend or Kasar. A person who had bid at the auction will have to execute a promissory note along with the surety guaranteeing payment of the future instalments. The general rules relating to the chit of the p...
N. Soundarapandian Vs. Vallioor Panchayat Union Council Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ23
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The second respondent made an application dated the 11th of November, 1970 to the Vallioor Panchayat Union (here in after referred to as the Panchayat) praying for the issue of a licence to install machinery for running a new rice mill in Chottikulam. The panchayat granted the application by an order dated the 10th of May, 1971 which is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that according to the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 (here in after referred to as the Act) it was incumbent on the panchayat to call for the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and the Director of Town Planning before granting the application, that neither of these two authorities was approached by the panchayat, and that, therefore, the application was granted in contravention of the said rules. The petitioner prays that the order dated the 10th of May, 1971 and mentioned above be quashed by a writ of certiorari.2. learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 ...
K. Arunachalam Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR780(Mad)
MOHAN J. - The short question that arises in these three writ petitions is whether the holdings of the wife who, under a settlement from the petitioner made on November 25, 1959, got 44.78 acres could be clubbed along with the holdings of the petitioner.The case of the petitioner is that these properties were ancestral in character and, therefor, the properties retained by him after settlement should be considered as belonging to the Hindu joint family consisting of the petitioner and his wife and it is not necessary that there should be another male member to constitute a joint Hindu family because this is not a case of coparcenary. In support of his submission reliance is placed on Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax : [1969]74ITR190(SC) . The first of the two writ petitions, viz., W.P. No. 6053 of 1973, relates to the assessment year 1970-71 and the second writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 263 of 1974, relates to the assessment year 1971-72. I do not think it is necessary in thes...
Marimuthu Vs. Ambujam Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ218
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. One Bangaru Naicker was the original owner of the suit property. He mortgaged the property in favour of the plaintiff on 9th January, 1962 for a sum of Rs. 400. The plaintiff filed a suit O.S. No. 248 of 1968 on the said mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree and then a final decree. The suit property was brought to sale by the plaintiff in E.P. No. 328 of 1969 and with the Court's permission he purchased the same in the Court-auction-sale held on 11th February, 1970. The sale was confirmed on 28th March, 1970 and the plaintiff took delivery of possession of the property through Court on 20th July, 1970 in E.A. No. 1049 of 1970. The first defendant had also advanced money on a mortgage of the same property and the said mortgage was subsequent to the one in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 911 of 1967 against the mortgagor Bangaru Naicker and in execution of the decree, brought the property to s...
Venkatavaradan Vs. K. Janardanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ426
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is an individual by name Vinkatavaradan. The respondent is one Janardanan. A (sic) was obtain d by Janardanan against Venkatavaradan for Rs. 14,413.80. Venkatavaradat, whom, I shall (sic) as the judgment debtor, applied in E.A. 516 of 1976, for stay of excition of (sic) him clearing that he was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976 (Act XV of 1976). He asserted that he was not assessed either to Central Income-tax or to agricultural income-tax or to sales tax either under the state Law or under the Central Law for the years 1971-72 to 1974-75. The application for stay of execution was opposed by Janardanan, the decree-holder. He urged that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to invoke Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1976 as an agriculturist. The reason given was that the judgment-debtor was a partner in a firm called 'Rajagopal Chetti and Sons' and the partnershi...
Marimuthu Vs. Ambujam Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad50
Sethuraman, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. One Bangaru Naicker was the original owner of the suit property. He mortgaged the property in favour of the plaintiff on 9-1-1962, for a sum of Rs. 400. The plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 248 of 1968 on the said mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree and then a final decree. The suit property was brought to sale by the plaintiff in E. P. 328 of 1969 and with the court's permission he purchased the same in the court auction sale held on 11-2-1970. The sale was confirmed on 28-3-1970, and the plaintiff took delivery of possession of the property through court on 20-7-1970, in E. A. 1049 of 1970. The first defendant had also advanced money on a mortgage of the same property and the said mortgage was subsequent to the one in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant filed a suit in O. S. No. 911 of 1967, against the mortgagor Bangaru Naicker and in execution of the decree, brought the property to sale. After getting permission of t...
Muniammal Vs. Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad103
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 11 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupattur, North Arcot, who failed before the trial Court, is the appellant herein. She filed the said suit against her husband, the defendant, for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per mensem and for the recovery of Rupees 24,000/- as arrears of past maintenance and for a charge over the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaint allegations, she was married to the defendant in 1931 and begot a child in 1940 which, of course, died. Thereafter, differences arose between them, which led to the plaintiff filing O. S. 15 of 1943 in the trial Court for maintenance, in which she also obtained a decree dated 4-3-1944 for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10/- per mensem, Rs. 2/- for residence and Rs. 20/- per annum for clothing, along with arrears of maintenance coming to Rs. 457-3-0. On a fresh trial after remand, a charge over the defendant's 1/12 share of the joint family properties (co...
P. Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal Alias Lakshmi Kantam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad361
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O. S. No. 114 of 1970 on his file. S. P. Veerbadra Chettiar, the common ancestor, died on 22-2-1951 leaving behind him. his wife, the second defendant and three daughters. Maragathammal, is his eldest daughter, who is not a party to this litigation, who married an advocate by name P. Rajappan. The first defendant P. Saraswathi Ammal married the brother of P. Rajappan and he is Dr. Punnaivanam, Rajappan was examined as D. W. 7 in the case. The plaintiff Latchmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam, is the third daughter. Veerabadra Chettiar's wife Nagalakshrni Ammal, is the mother of the plaintiff, the first defendant and Maragathammal and is the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff came to Court to set aside the sale deed Ex. B-2 dated 29-6-1964 executed by her mother (second defendant) and herself in respect of the suit properties which sale was in favour of...
P. Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ179
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 114 of 1970 on his file. S.P. Veerabadra Chettiar, the common ancestor, died on 22nd February, 1951 leaving behind him, his wife, the second defendant and three daughters. Maragathammal, is his eldest daughter, who is not a party to this litigation married an advocate by name P. Rajappan. The first defendant P. Saraswathi Ammal married the brother of P. Rajappan and he is Dr. Punnaivanan. Rajappan was examined as D.W. 7 in the case. The plaintiff Latchmi Ammal alias Lakshmi Kantam is the third daughter. Veerabadra Chettiar's wife Nagalakshmi Ammal, is the mother of the plaintiff, the first defendant and Maragathammal and is the second defendant in the suit. The plaintiff came to Court to set aside the sale-deed Exhibit B-2 dated 29th June, 1964 executed by her mother (second defendant) and herself in respect of the suit properties which sale was ...
Chinnaiah Kownder Vs. Kattayya Kownder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad51
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for an injunction. The suit property originally belonged to the defendant and his elder brother one Rama Gounder. In their hands it was a joint family property. The elder brother of the defendant died somewhere in the year 1950 when the defendant was a minor. The defendant's parents had died earlier than that. Therefore the defendant was brought up by his maternal uncle. The maternal uncle sold the property to the plaintiff on 12-11-1956 as guardian of the defendant who was then minor. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 21-8-1970, as already stated for a declaration and injunction. In the plaint it was stated that at the time when the sale deed was executed on 12-11-1956. the defendant was about 17 years old. But this was denied by the defendant in the written statement and he contended that he was only about 11 years old at the time of the transac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »