Chennai Court August 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.
T.C. Peter Vs. the Union Public Service Commission by Its Secretary, N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad87
1. This appeal raises, if we may so term it, a vexed question, which had arisen several times before courts, including the Supreme Court The question is, when action is taken against a student-examinee, for alleged malpractice in the examination hall, what is the nature of the enquiry that is contemplated by the authority entitled to punish the student by either withholding his result of the examination for which he sat or by withholding his result of the examination as well as by debarring him from future examinations.2. In the case before us the appellant, an engineering graduate, sat for the Engineering Service examination. On 4-8-1976, one of the days on which the examination was held, the invigilator in charge of the row in which the appellant sat, suspected that the appellant was using unauthorised manuscripts, hidden under the handkerchief held by him and so questioned the appellant. It is the case of the invigilator that before he could get at the manuscripts the appellant mana...
M.C. Manickam Vs. V.Sm. Sivalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad324
1. The appeal and the cross-objections are against the final decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership and taking of accounts. The partnership business was carried on in a town in Indonesia under the name and style of M.C. Firm. Chinniah Chetti, whose adopted son has filed the suit, had an 11 anna share in the said business. The first defendant in the suit is the widow of the said Chinniah Chetti. The third defendant is the daughter-in-law of Chinniah Chetti and the first defendant through another pre-deceased adopted son. The second defendant Sivalingam Chetti had a 5 anna share in the said firm.2. The plaintiff's suit for dissolution of the partnership and for taking of accounts was filed on 29-6-1950. The second defendant raised various contentions, one such contention being that the accounts of the firm had been settled and that there was no case for dissolution of the firm and taking of accounts. It is common ground that the business of the firm had come to an end even in 19...
P. Ethirajammal Vs. N. Hassan Kanno
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad327
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The legal representative of the plaintiff-landlord is the appellant before me. The Muthumari Chetti St., Mannady, Madras, which the respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) had taken on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 700. According to the landlord (plaintiff) the building had been put up in the year 1965 and therefore the same was exempt under S. 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it then stood. It may be noted that under the above provision, any building constructed after the commencement of the Act was exempt from the provisions of the Act. Therefore in respect of such buildings, the landlord need not make out a case under S. 10 of the Act to evict the tenant. When the suit was filed in the present case, admittedly the building was exempt from the provisions of the Act and therefore the landlord had no necessity to make ...
Vincent Antony Jabamalai Fernando and ors. Vs. S.A. Thomas Fernando an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad90
Generally no interest should be awarded in a suitfor dissolution of the partnership till the amount dueto the persons suing for dissolution get determinedby the decree passed in the case. Therefore, interestcan be granted only from the date of the decree.But this principle will apply only to cases where the suithas been filed for dissolution of a going concern. INthe instant case, the suit was clearly a suit instituted,after the firm got dissolved, for a share due to the plaintiff.The interest awarded was only from the date ofsuit and this was proper....
A. Vedavalli Ammal and ors. Vs. Rajamanickam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ490
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., dated 14th December, 1976 dismissing W.P. No. 2575 of 1976, which had been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, in R.P. No. 18 of 1976-L-4, dated 4th May, 1976 and quashing that order.2. We are concerned in this writ appeal with the following lands lying in No. 109, Thenampadugai Vattam, Thenampadugai Village, Kumbakonam Taluk. R.S. No. Extent. A.C. Wet. 59/1 ' 1.94 59/2 ' 1.34 59/2 ' 0.44 60/1 ' 2.70 61/1A ' 1.00 100/28 ' 0.92 47/1A ' 0.04 47/5A ' 0.08 Total 8.463. The first appellant, Vedavalli Ammal appears to have filed an application in about September, 1971, before the Record Officer, Kumbakonam, for a declaration that the aforesaid lands were under her pannai cultivation. The Additional Record Officer, Kumbakonam, had, by his order dated 29th September, 1971, declared that the lands were under her...
Voc Industrial Workers Co-operative Housing Society and ors. Vs. M. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad91
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This second appeal relates to a suit stayed by the trial court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The stay of suit was granted to enable the parties to go to the arbitrator for resolving the dispute which was the subject-matter of the suit. The arbitration, however, became infructuous. The second appeal raises the question as to how the trial court should have proceeded in the circumstances stated above. 2. The suit in this case was filed in the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore,by a building contractor against a cooperative building society and two of its principal office-bearers. The suit was for accounts. The defendants entered appearance in the suit, but did not file any written statement. They moved the court, instead, for an order staying the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. They invoked the arbitration clause in the suit contract. The learned District Munsif granted the application of the defendants and stayed the suit. That was on 18-3...
K.S. Somasimdaram and ors. Vs. Secretary, Railway Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ211Mad
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The order impugned in these five writ petitions is the one dated 14th July, 1976 passed by the Railway Board, the first respondent, reverting the five petitioners who were on that date holding the post of A Grade guards having their lien in B Grade to the lower post of B Grade guards. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the order dated 14th July, 1976 of the first respondent was passed on a misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, South Central Railway v. T. Venkata Rao : (1975)IILLJ475SC , The facts are the following.2. There was a Grain Shop Department to supply provisions to the railway staff. The petitioner in these five writ petitions were appointed respectively on 24th September, 1944, 17th March, 1945, 25th June, 1943, 24th June, 1943 and 24th June, 1943, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4164 of 1976 as attender and the petitioners in the other writ petitions as clerks. The Grain Shop Department was wound up in 194...
Shantilal Paramshankar Joshi, Sole Prop., Espee and Co. Vs. themis Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ213
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Four suits were tried together by Paul, J., and a common judgment was rendered. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Messrs. Espee and Company and he is the common plaintiff in all the suits. The defendants, however, are different. In this Judgment, we are concerned with CS. Nos. 67 of 1969 and 167 of 1971 against which the plaintiff has preferred O.S.A. Nos. 53 of 1975 and 51 of 1975 respectively. In O.S.A. No. 82 of 1976 the aggrieved defendants have filed a separate appeal against the grant of special costs by the trial Judge in C.S. No. 67 of 1969.2. The relevant facts to appreciate the scope of these three appeals, can be summarised thus : The plaintiff claims to be an inventor of a patent and a device as the sole proprietor of Messrs. Espee and Company and one such patent discovered by him relates to combined closure and dropper for bottles and like containers of liquid. He secured the necessary statutory sanction to claim rights as patents having obta...
K.S. Somasundaram and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Railway Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ272
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. The order impugned in these five writ petitions is the one dated 14th July, 1976 passed by the Railway Board, the first respondent, reverting the five petitioners who were on that date holding the post of A Grade Guards having their lien in B Grade to the lower post of B Grade Guards. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the order dated 14th July, 1976 of the first respondent was passed on a misunderstanding of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, South Central Railway v. T. Venkata Rao : (1975)IILLJ475SC . The facts are the following.2. There was a Grain Shop Department to supply provisions to the railway staff. The petitioner in these five writ petitions were appointed respectively on 24th September, 1944, 17th March, 1945, 25th June, 1943, 24th June, 1943 and 24th June, 1943, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4164 of 1976 as attender and the petitioners in the other writ petitions as clerks. The Grain Shop Department was wound up in 194...
Gopilal J. Nichani Vs. Trac Industries and Components Ltd., Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad134
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. We propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment, because the main questions involved in these appeals centre round the interpretation we have to place on Section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act 1969 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.2. The appeal in O. S. A. 48 of 1975 is from the order of Sethuraman J. in Appln. No. 1849 of 1973 in C. S. 155 of 1973, on the file of this Court dismissing the suit filed against a relief undertaking as defined in Section 2 (4) of the Act and against the sureties who guaranteed the debt due from the relief undertaking.3. O. S. A. No. 68 of 1976 is an appeal fry the guarantor of a debt due from a relief undertaking against whom insolvency proceedings were commenced to adjudge him as insolvent by the creditor. Suryamurthy J. held that the petitioning creditor seeking to adjudge the guarantor is not seeking ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›