Chennai Court July 1978 Judgments
Satish Majumdar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ119
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these petitions are the same, they-are dealt with together.2. As the facts in all the cases are substantially the same, it is enough if we deal with the facts in the first case that is W.P. No. 465 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 is one Satish Majumdar who has adopted the affidavit filed by one N.S. Mani in W.P. Nos. 463 and 464 of 1978 which have already been disposed of by one of us on 9th February 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 was a holder of a liquor permit issued by t he-State of Tamil Nadu since September, 1974 and that permit expired on 20th January, 1978. On 3rd February, 1978 he applied for the renewal of the said permit in accordance with the Madras Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the prescribed form. Just before the renewal application was filed certain nodifications were effected in the said rules by G.O.Ms. No. 3495, Home dated 31st Dece...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Galiakotwala and Co. (P.) Ltd., by Its Managing Director Vs. Kand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ1
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful defendant in I.A. No. 874 of 1974 in O.S. No. 426 of 1974, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,63,794 as damages, on the foot that the appellant-defendent had committed breach of contract, dated 15th January, 1974, to supply 500 full-pressed bales of new crop 797 Dholka or Bavla FAQ, cotton of 1973-1974 season on the terms and conditions contained in the confirmation slip dated 15th January, 1974. The contract originated in correspondence and the respondent's case is that it was concluded by a telegram. This is seen from Exhibits B-1 to B-3. The respondent's specific case is that he sent the sale confirmation letter to the appellant and that that was the process by which the contract was concluded. On the strength of such a concluded contract, the respondent-plaintiff was demanding the performance of the same in accordance with its...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaiah thevar Vs. Shanmugavel thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ142
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 18 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Shencottah is the petitioner in the revision. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for partition and separate possession of his one fourth share in the suit properties. The necessary averments that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit properties have been made in the plaint and the plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act XIV of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the right in and the joint possession of the suit properties, claimed by the plaintiff. The 4th defendant, who is an alienee of one of the items of suit properties from the first defendant, also raised a similar contest. On the pleadings various issues were framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Bivi Vs. Abdul Jabar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad121
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 93 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed I. A. No. 744 of 1976 under Order 26 Rule 5 C. P. Code. To appoint a Commissioner for examining one Abdul Wahab or issue a letter of request addressed to the Presiding Officer of the Court within whose jurisdiction the said Abdul Wahab resides, requesting him to appoint a Commissioner and to have the said Abdul Wahab examined by such Commissioner and forward the evidence to the lower court. There were other suits O. S. Nos., 92, 94 and 121 of 1974, on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram. In those suits the said Abdul Wahab is a party plaintiff.2. Application were also taken out by the plaintiffs in the said suits for the issue of commission to examine the said Abdul Wahab. There is no dispute that the said Abdul Wahab is in Malaysia and difficulties are being experienced with reference to ...
Tag this Judgment!Amnia Bivi represented by power agent' K.M. Raja Mohammad Vs. Abdul Ja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ21
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 93 of 1974 on the of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 744 of 1976 under Order 26, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, to appoint a Commissioner for examining one Abdul Wahab or issue a letter of request addressed to the Presiding Officer of the Court within whose jurisdiction the said Abdul Wahab resides requesting him to appoint a Commissioner and to have the said Abdul Wahab examined by such Commissioner and forward the evidence to the lower Court. There were other suits O.S. Nos. 92, 94 and 121 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram. In those suits the said Abdul Wahab is a party plaintiff.2. Applications were also taken out by the plaintiffs in the said suits for the issue of commission to examine the said Abdul Wahab. There is no dispute that the said Abdul Wahab is in Malaysia and difficulties are b...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Kudumban Vs. Arokiam Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ370
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey an item of immoveable property. The suit was filed by an assignee from the original vendor. The defendant who had bound himself to reconvey the property resisted this suit. He said that the agreement of reconveyance was not assignable. He put for ward other defences too. The trial Court upheld these defences and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Sub-Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour.2. The defendant has now brought this second appeal against the appellate decree. The argument of his counsel, Mr. R.G. Rajan, was however directed not so much against the decree passed by the appellate Court for specific performance, as such, but against another part of the decree to which I must now refer. It appears from the record that before the trial Court the plaintiff had also prayed for mesne profits to be directed to be paid by the defend...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Subbiah and anr. Vs. N. Sankaran Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad56
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. O. S. A. No. 75 of 1978 is by the first defendant in C. S. No. 214 of 1978 on the file of the Original Side of this court and O. S. A. No. 76 of 1978 is by the second defendant in the said suit. These two appeals are directed against the order of Nainar Sundaram J. In Appln. No. 2290 of 1978 in the Original Side. The plaintiffs claiming a copyright in the story titled 'Madanotsavam', sought for an injunction restraining the appellants-defendants and/or their authorised representatives from infringing the above copyright of the plaintiffs-respondents in any manner whatsoever and in particular, for an injunction restraining the defendants from producing or continuing to produce any picture in Telugu, based on the story Madanotsavam but under the title 'Amar Prem'. Such a prayer was asked for by the plaintiffs in Appln. No. 1946 of 1978. The learned Judge in a well-considered order dated 17-5-1978, instead of granting an injunction as prayed for, made certain dire...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Nalla Goundar Vs. P. Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ309
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem dated 4th October, 1977 made in I.A. No. 646 of 1976 in O.S. No. 114 of 1966 By the impugned order the learned Subordinate Judge appointed a Commissioner for ascertaining the mesne profits. The suit itself was one for partition and a preliminary decree was first passed and thereafter a final decree was passed dividing the properties as between the parties. It is thereafter the present application for appointment of a Commissioner for ascertaining the mesne profits was filed and the impugned order was passed thereon.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the ground that after a final decree in the partition suit there can be no separate decree in relation to the mesne profits. itself. This question had come up for consideration before this Court in B.N. Thiayagarajan v. B.N. Sundaravelu : AIR1972Mad216 judgment by Raghavan, J. and in A.R. Veerappa Goundar ...
Tag this Judgment!international Cotton Traders, Tatabad, Coimbatore Vs. P. Narayanaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad36
1. This and appeal against the order of Ramanujam J. dated 15-10-1976. The matter lies in a very narrow compass.The respondent herein was the third defendant in O. S. No. 733 of 1972, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. After a preliminary decree was passed therein, the final decree proceedings has taken place. Notice was served on the respondent herein and he was represented by counsel. His counsel was taking time for filing counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent and at a particular stage, the counsel reported no instructions. Thereafter, the ex parte final decree was passed on 26-11-1974. Subsequently, on 24-1-1975, the respondent herein filed I. A. No. 63 of 1975 under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. to set aside the exparte final decree on the ground that his non-appearance before court on the day of the hearing of the final decree proceedings was due to the fact that the plaintiff represented to him that he would not proceed against the mortgaged proper...
Tag this Judgment!Sunsine Co. Vs. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad191
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue an additional licence for the value of Rs. 72,444, for the import of dates on the basis that the main licence should be for the value of Rs. 1,56,000 and for ancillary reliefs.2. On the basis of past imports the petitioner obtained what is known as quota certificate which enables him to import dates from Iraq. As is usual, public notices were issued in the year 1971, prescribing the circumstances under which various quota certificates can be obtained by established importers in relations to their previous imports. We are here concerned with a public notice dealing with two distinct items. This public notice is dated 25-10-1971. It provided that the basic period for the purpose of calculating the quota of established importers would be from 1951-52 to 1966-1967, for all items unless otherwise provided. But in respect of dates the public notice provided that the quota cert...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »