Chennai Court November 1978 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.
Sarojini Ammal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad16
1. The petitioners in all these petitions are landlords who have let out their lands to tenants for cultivation and have either filed applications for eviction before the Revenue Court on the ground that the tenants have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent or filed suits in civil courts for recovery of the arrears of rent. All these petitions have been filed challenging the Constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, Madras Act XXI of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution, of India. According to them, the provisions of the Act practically liquidate the rights of the land lords and prevent eviction even: when the tenants are admittedly in arrears, that the tenants who art in arrears for several years are entitled to continue in possession of the leasehold property if they pay the current rent alone, that no applica...
Sarojini Ammal Represented by Power of Attorney Agent, A. Gopalan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ425
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are landlords who have let out their lands to tenants for cultivation and have either filed applications for eviction before the Revenue Court on the ground that the tenants have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. All these petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, (Madras Act XXI of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. According to them, the provisions of the Act practically liquidate the rights of the landlords and prevent eviction even when the tenants are admittedly in arrears, that the tenants who are in arrears for several years are entitled to continue in possession of the leasehold property if they pay the current rent alone, that no application for eviction can even be made for six ...
Secretary, Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Vs. Presiding Officer, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ29Mad
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this writ petition an important question relating to the scope and applicability of Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) is involved. The second respondent was impleaded as a clerk under the petitioner-co-operative society on a monthly pay of Rs. 95. The Executive Officer of the District Co-operative Society who is an inspecting authority, during inspection in May, 1972 noticed a collection of a sum of Rs. 4,485 by the Society from various members without actually issuing receipts. In certain cases, the moneys realised were not also brought into accounts maintained by the Society. The Executive Officer considered that the second respondent was responsible for these irregularities and there was a temporary misappropriations. The Executive Officer appears to have written a letter to the President of the registered Society asking him to take appropriate disciplinary action against him. On 13-7-1972, the President of th...
M. Masthan Rowther and ors. Vs. Sulaika Beevi (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ320
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The only question involved in this second appeal is about the validity of the original of Exhibit B-2 dated 21st September, 1958, executed by one Alla Pichai. Several contentions would appear to have been advanced as to the nature of the transaction brought about by Exhibit B-2, namely, as to whether it was a gift or a will or a settlement or a family arrangement. Before the terms of this document are considered and a decision reached as to its character, it is necessary to refer to the relationship of the parties to the litigation. The plaintiff in the suit is the sister of the deceased Alla Pichai. Defendants 1 and 2 are the widows of Alla Pichai. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of a pre-deceased sister of Alla Pichai. Defendants 5 and 6 are merely tenants of the property. Since Alla Pichai had no children, after he had died intestate, the plaintiff as the sister of the deceased Alla Pichai, would have been an heir and entitled to a share in his estate. It is in...
P.M. Kuppa Sah Vs. Rajaram Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ498
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the landlord. He owns premises No. 1-A, Balakrishna Pillai New Street, Chintadripet, Madras-2. The respondent was 'one of the tenants occupying a portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 15. A notice of determination of tenancy was given by the petitioner against three of his tenants, who were by then occupying small portions in the premises. One of the tenants, on the insurance of the notice of determination of tenancy, vacated, and the petitioner put his belongings in that portion, locked it up and kept it with him. Thereafter he filed two petitions against the remaining two tenants, who did not comply with his request for surrender of possession as asked for in his notice of determination of tenancy. H.R.C. No. 793 of 1973 was against the tenant who was in occupation of a portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 30 and H.R.C. No. 794 of 1973 was against the present respondent. He filed the two petitions on ...
Nellai Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Executive Officer, Office of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ476
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, CJ.1. The writ petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It is a textile mill and a private limited company. For the year 1970-71, the petitioner paid Rs. 4, 318. 22 towards property tax, water tax and library cess to the Town Panchayat, Thachanallur, Tirunelveli district, which is the first respondent in the writ petition. For the year 1971-72, a general revision of the tax payable by the petitioner, among others, to the Panchayat was undertaken, and the tax was increased from Rs. 4, 318-22 to Rs. 5, 834-79. On representations made by the petitioner, a fresh assessment was made demanding a sum of Rs. 6,724-32, which comprised of property tax, water-tax and library cess, reckoned in the ratio of 1:0.50: 0.50. On further representations, the tax was reduced to Rs. 6,081 38. Inter alia this amount represents a sum of Rs. 1,736.20 towards water tax. While this was the position, another notice of demand was issued on 28th October, 1972, wher...
Umayal Achi and anr. Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1978
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ24
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals are connected. They arise out of a judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in E.P. No. 35 of 1973 in execution of a decree of the High Court passed in its Original Side in C.S. No. 33 of 1929. The 13th respondent in the execution petition in the Court below, as the legal representative of the second defendant, who died in the course of the proceedings, is the appellant in C.M.A. No.298 of 1975. The fourth respondent in the execution petition is the appellant in C.M.A.No. 540 of 1975. The Original Side of this Court passed a decree on 2nd December, 1929. It was a money decree payable with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from that date. The suit as against defendants 4 to 9 was dismissed, but the decree was made executable against the assets of P.M.A. family which was a Nattukottai Chettiar trading family in the hands of defendants 13 and 10. In so far as the 10th defendant is concerned, he was an adminis...
State of Madras and anr. Vs. Efficient Publicities Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC427(Mad)
Varadarajan, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6676 of1968 on the file of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, arethe appellants. The respondent was carrying on business in advertisement andpublicity in Tamil Nadu. According to the plaint, in the course of suchbusiness, the respondent was getting blocks, slides, etc., made for itscustomers and passing them on to its customers. The commercial tax authoritieswere making demands for tax on the cost involved in the preparation of blocks,etc. The respondent had been resisting these demands on the ground that nosale was involved in the transactions and had taken up the matter on appealbefore the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes but withoutavail. The appellants had compulsorily levied sales tax aggregating to Rs.22,218 for the years from 1961-62 to 1965-66. But a Bench of this Court hasheld on 8th March, 1967, in W.P. Nos. 2465 to 2468, 2702 to 2708 and 2767 to2770 of 1966 that the line of activities carrie...
M.S. Mani Vs. K.N. Velayudham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ86
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. This civil revision petition is to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, in I.A. No. 735 of 1975 in O.S. No. 6 of 1972, dated 25th September, 1975. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein and was also the applicant in the Court below. He filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum at Rs. 86,000 and odd and paid court-fee to the tune of Rs. 6,455.25 under Section 22 of the Court-fees Act. He obtained an ex parte decree. In pursuance of the said decree, E.P. No. 67 of 1974 was filed and there was a realisation of Rs. 19,855. However, the ex parte decree came to be set aside by an order in I.A. No. 613 of 1974, dated 16th April, 1975. After setting aside the ex parte decree, when the case came up for hearing, it was dismissed as settled out at Court on 28th April, 1975. The petitioner prayed for a refund of the Court-fee paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court ...
The Management, Sree Lalithambika Enterprises Vs. Kailasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1978
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ480
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore in W.C. Case No. 97 of 1978, in which he has ordered that the respondent-workmen, be paid a compensation of Rs. 11,020.80 for the injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment.2. The respondent filed the petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) (hereinafter will be referred to as the 'Act') for the loss of four fingers in his left hand on account of the accident that took place on 17th August, 1978, in the course of the employment under Sree Lalithambika Enterprise, Salem. He was getting a salary of Rs. 370 per month and he was also earning some amount by playing veena and therefore for loss of earning capacity, he has filed the petition for compensation. The Management/appellant herein claimed that on 17th August, 1978, the factory was not working because, on that day, there was an inspection by the Ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »