Chennai Court August 1977 Judgments
K.P.V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther and Company Private Limited Vs. the Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1977
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ117
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The 2nd Defendant in C.S.No.48 of 1970 who are the Steamer Agents of the vesselS.S. Vishva Kalyan are Appellants. The Trustees of the Port of Madras filed a suit against two defendants, the 1st being the named consignee of goods which were imported from broad and the 2nd Defendant being the Steamer Agent of t he vessel which carried such goods. The Vessel arrived at Madras on March 11,1967 and after the goods were manifested in the normal way, the Port Trust took statutory charge of the goods from the Vessel on the same day, but it transpires that in or about April 11,1967 the goods were seized underSection 110 of the Customs Act and were removed to the confiscated goods warehouse by the Customs Department. The investigations by the Customs Department into the validity and regularity of the import took some time and in the meanwhile the harbour dues and demurrage charges with reference to the imported goods were mounting up by leaps andbounds. The Port Trust even ...
Tag this Judgment!J.N. Gulamali and ors. Vs. Howrah Casting Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ218
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. All these revision petitions arise out of a common judgment and the question of law that arises in these revision petitions is one and the same. It is enough to note the facts of one of the cases.2. The revision petitioners are the owners of premises bearing Door No. 25, Errabalu Chetty Street, Madras-1. The respondents are tenants in various portions of the said building. The second petitioner (Abidali) in all these petitions is carrying on business in pipes and sluice valves under the name and style of 'International Sales Corporation', in Door No. 3|13, Vanniar Street, Madras. It is a rented premises. It is admitted that the business carried on by the revision petitioners in No. 25, Errabalu Chetty Street, Madras, is a different business than the one which the second petitioner is carrying on at No. 3|13, Vanniar Street. Stating that the second petitioner bona fide required the portions in the occupation of the respondents herein for his own business purposes he ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. Premraj and Ganapatraj and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT630(Mad)
P.G. Nair, C.J.1. This case raises a question which, though interesting, we consider, can be decided only one way, as it has been done by Koshal J., in allowing the writ petition asking for refund of the extra customs duty paid by the respondent. The notification fixing the customs tariff was admittedly before the date on which the Bill of Entry was submitted by the respondent. Fairly, without noticing the change in the tariff rate effected by the notification, the respondent paid the duty at the rate that originally prevailed. An application for refund was, however, made after the time stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. This was rejected by the Customs authorities. Thereafter, the writ petition which was allowed by the Judgment under appeal, was taken, and it was argued that the collection of duty was without the authority of law and that this court had not been inhibited by the period provided by Section 27, which would prevent the customs authorities from ordering...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal and anr. Vs. Valliammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad21; (1978)1MLJ391
N.S. Ramaswami, J. 1. The defendants are the appellants. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties, for permanent injunction in respect of one item and for recovery of possession and other reliefs in respect of another.2. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the widows of one Kandaswami Gounder who died on 18-9-1942. He had no issue. He left considerable irnmoveable properties in the shape of agricultural lands. The case of the plaintiff has been that even in the year 1943 there had been a final partition of the properties by metes and bounds between the two widows by mutual consent, that in the said partition the suit properties fell to her (plaintiff's) share, that in respect of one of the suit properties (item 2 of first schedule) the second defendant who is no other than Kandaswami Gounder's brother's son became a tenant under the plaintiff and that as the second defendant failed to pay the rent and began disputing her title alo...
Tag this Judgment!Bandi Chalapathi Rao and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad112
1. When these two appeals were taken up, Mr. Sivaramakrishnaiah appearing for the appellant in O. S. A. No. 50 of 1973 as also Mr. Dolia in O. S. A. 75 of 1975 have raised a preliminary objection that the Judge sitting in insolvency ought not to have enquired into the Judge's summons taken out by the Official Assignee under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and given a judgment on the merits. Their contention is that this is a case in which the appellant in each of these appeals did not admit the liability as set out in the report of the Official Assignee and as claimed by him in the Judge's summons and at all material times there was a contest by the appellants regarding their liability to the claim made by the Official Assignee. Mr. Sivaramakrishniah arguing on the preliminary objection would say that the proviso to Section 7 of the Act having been introduced with a distinct purpose has a meaning and a significance to serve. He would invite our attention to the history...
Tag this Judgment!Bandi Chalapathy Rao and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ316
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. When these two appeals were taken up, Mr. Sivaramakrishnaiah appearing for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 50 of 1973 as also Mr. Dolia in O.S.A. No. 75 of 1975 have raised a preliminary objection that the Judge sitting in insolvency ought not to have enquired into the Judge's summons taken out by the Official Assignee under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and given a judgment on the merits. Their contention is that this is a case in which the appellant in each of these appeals did not admit the liability as set out in the report of the Official Assignee and as claimed by him in the Judge's summons and at all material times there was a contest by the appellants regarding their liability to the claim made by the Official Assignee. Mr. Sivaramakrishniah arguing on the preliminary objection would say that the proviso to Section 7 of the Act having been introduced with a distinct purpose has a meaning and a significance to serve. He would invite our atten...
Tag this Judgment!Kamudavalli and anr. Vs. P.N. Purushotham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad205
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Theplaintiffs in a suit filed u/s 92, C. P. C., in C. S. No. 73 of 1972, on the file of the Original Side of this court, are the appellants. After obtaining the sanction from the Advocate General, Madras, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to remove the defendant from trusteeship, for appointing a fit and proper person as trustee for a public trust endowed for the purpose of running and maintaining what is known as Nagammal Hindu Higher Elementary school, which was dedicated by late Nathamuni Chetti under a deed of trust dated 2-6-1941. For the said purpose certain immoveable properties were also earmarked by the author of the trust. The plaintiffs complained of mismanagement by the respondent, who is now functioning as trustee. They would claim to be interested in the trust, the first plaintiff beingthe widow of late Nathamuni Chetti and the second plaintiff being a close relation and old boy of the elementary school besides being a resident of the locali...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramanujam Chettiar Vs. Arunachaleswarar Devastanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad395
ORDERVaradarajan, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of the judgments and decrees of the Second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras passed on 25-8-1976 in Ejectment suits Nos. 285, 280, 284 and 286 of 1975.2. The trial court ordered eviction of the petitioners in these civil revision petitions holding that their old tenancy had been terminated and no new tenancy has come into existence thereafter, that there is no waiver of notice of the termination of tenancy by acceptance of any rent and that G. O. No. M. S. 1998 Home Department, dated 12-8-1974, exempting properties belonging to temples from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 applies to the respondent-devastanams.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed before me only the question of the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, Madras, to entertain the ejectment suits under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. It may be stated at this stage that...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudavalli Ammal Alias Kuppammal and anr. Vs. P.N. Purushotham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ261
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs in a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in C.S. No. 73 of 1972 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, are the appellants. After obtaining the sanction from the Advocate-General, Madras, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit to remove the defendant from trusteeship, for appointing a fit and proper person as trustee of a public trust endowed for the purpose of running and maintaining what is known as Nagammal Hindu Higher Elementary School, which was dedicated by late Nathamuni Chetti under a deed of trust dated 2nd June, 1941. For the said purpose certain immovable properties were also earmarked by the author of the trust. The plaintiffs complained of mis-management by the respondent, who is now functioning as trustee. They would claim to be interested in the trust, the first plaintiff being the widow of late Nathamuni Chetty and the second plaintiff being a close relation and old boy of the Elementary School be...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshmal Maggaji by His Power Agent Roopchand Maggaji Vs. the Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ287
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. In this appeal by a writ petitioner who unsuccessfully sought to quash the orders passed by the first and second respondents, namely, the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collector of Customs, Madras, an interesting and somewhat difficult question of interpretation of the provisions of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (here in after called 'the Order') arises. To be more, specific, the question is whether on the facts of the case, it is Clause 3(3) of the Order that would apply or Clause 10-C thereof.2. The appellant before us is a letter-of-authority holder for a firm to whom licence had been issued, admittedly validly, for the import of photographic films. He opened an irrevocable letter of credit on 11th January, 1974 in favour of the foreign exporter and the goods were despatched on 24th July, 1974 and they arrived at the Port of Madras and a Bill Entry was filed on 18th September, 1974. The description of the goods given in the licence stated:Phot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »