Chennai Court April 1979 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.
Sri Aurobindo Society Vs. Ramadoss Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad216
1. This second appeal raises a point about the validity of an alienation of a Hindu minor's property by a facto guardian. This species of guardians has been abolished by S. 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1950. But the transaction in this case arose before the Act, and hence it bears on the position of law which prevailed earlier. It also raises a point as to the appropriate steps to be followed by the minor for impugning or getting over sales by de facto guardians.2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. One Lakshmi Ammal had a life interest and her two sons had a vested remainder in an item of land. These were be quoted to them under a Will. When second son Govindrajulu was still a minor, the mother Lakshmi, Ammal and her first joined together and sold the entire bequeathed property, inclusive of the minors interest there in. In that conveyance, the mother purported to act as the minor's guardian. The minor's father was very much there at the time, but he rested co...
Venkatachalarn Chettiar Vs. Adaikappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad102
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, dated 20-10-1978 dismissing E. A. No. 170 of 1978 in E. P. 17 of 1975. The execution petition was filed for realisation of the costs awarded by tins court in App No. 640 of 1969. The petitioner herein filed the execution application in question for stay under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 1978 which has now been replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the provisions of the Ordinance could be invoked by a person who is entitled to scale down the decree or other benefits conferred under the Act and that, as regards costs, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any relief under the said Ordinance. It is this order which is now challenged by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. 2. As already mentioned, Ordinance 5 of 1978 has been now replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. There is no dispute ...
Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. Adaikappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ361
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, dated 20th October, 1978 dismissing E. A. No. 170 of 1978 in E. P. No. 17 of 1975. The execution petition was filed for realisation of the costs awarded by this Court in Appeal No. 640 of 1969. The petitioner herein filed the execution application in question for stay under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance V of 1978 which has now been replaced by the Tamil Nadu Act XL of 1978. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the view that the provisions of the Ordinance could be invoked by a person who is entitled to scale down the decree or other benefits conferred under the Act and that, as regards costs, the petitioner was not entitled to claim any relief under the said Ordinance. It is this order which is now challenged by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition.2 As already mentioned. Ordinance V of 1978 has been now replaced by Tamil Nadu Act X...
Mathuram Augustine Vs. Vijayarani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad1
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. This reference arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli who decreed the suit for declaring the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant as null and void under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The short facts are as follows. The spouses are Christians. The plaintiff married the defendant on 27-5-1976 at the, CM. S. Church at Nazareth, Tiruchendur taluk,, and the marriage is evidenced by Ex. A-I. The plaintiff appeared to have tried his best to have sexual intercourse with the defendant which she refused consistently from the date of marriage. The burden of the song seems to be that in spite of persuasions, ever since the date of marriage, the marriage could not be consummated as the defendant never agreed to have sexual Intercourse with him. The plaintiff effected a change of place, of residence and took the, defendant to Sholinghur and treated her in the expectation that there would be a change in the attitude of the defend...
A. Palaniandi Pallai Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad166
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. -The suit is for setting aside the order of the defendant - Commissioner, H. R. and C. E. Department and for a declaration that the suit institution is not a temple as defined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Chair table Endowments Act 1959,(Tamil Nadu Act 22of 1959). At this appellate stage, the appellant had filed C. IL P.1796of 1979, praying that his prayer in the plaint may be amended adding the following words -"or in the alternative, declare that the suit institution is a denominational temple belonging to a religious denomination, viz., Thalakulam Melatheruchetti Samudayam".By an order dated 2-4-1979, we have amended the plaint as prayed for since we felt that the proposed amendment does not require Investigation of new facts or evidence and since a lesser relief is now claimed no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by allowing the proposed amendment. Further, the respondent has also not filed any counter for the said averments made in...
The Sirsilk Limited Vs. the Distillery Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ216
A. Varadarajan, J1. These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are, for the issue of writs of certiorari of any other appropriate writs and orders calling for the records in Order No. F.64 of 1975 dated 2nd April 1975, of the Distillery Officer, Tiruchira-palli, the first respondent and quashing the same.2. Messrs. Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Limited, Madras, the petitioners in W.P. No. 5172 of 1975 and third respondent in W.P. No. 3377 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Trichy Distilleries, are producers of Commercial Ethyl alcohol, also called as rectified spirit or industrial alcohol. Messrs. Sirsilk Limited, Kaghaznagar, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners in W P No. 3377 of 1975 and third respondent in W.P. No. 5172 of 1975, hereinafter referred to as Sirsilk, are the importers of rectified spirit produced by Trichy Distilleries.3. According to the affidavit of the Managing Director of Trichy Distilleries filed in support of W.P. No. 51/2 of 1...
M.K.M. Mohammed Abu Bucker and ors. Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ512
M. M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 399 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirunelveli, who lost before the Court below, are the appellants herein. The suit was one for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for arrears of rent. It is not necessary to refer to the various allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties in their respective pleadings. Admittedly, the suit properties belonged to the appellants-plaintiffs, and equally admittedly they had leased out the suit lands to the respondent-defendant for installing and erecting and maintaining underground tanks, delivery pumps, etc., and putting up necessary structures for the purpose of storing and selling petrol, petroleum products, oils, etc. When the suit was instituted for recovery of possession, the respondent put forward the contention that the respondent is entitled to the benefits of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. In the additional written: statement filed by th...
Edger Wesley Vs. Emity Violet and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad3
Rakaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No 3 of 1976 an the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore West, sought for dissolution of his marriage with the first defendant on the ground that the first defendant has already secured a decree for Judicial separation on 31-8-1972 in OS No. 4 of 1971 on the file of the same Court and though he was willing to live with her, it was the defendant who obtained such judicial separation and that he was not therefore interested in setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by her. He also alleges that the first defendant has married the second ending who has been imp leaded as a party to the suit and that the second marriage took place on 10-2- On the basis of the above pleadings he sought for a dissolution of the marriage.2. Both the defendants 1 and 2 were ex parte even in the court below. The learned District Judge marked Exts. A-1 and A-2 as the exhibits filed on behalf on the plaintiff. Ex A-1 is a certified copy of the judgment in OS No...
Rathnam and Co. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)310; [1980]124ITR376(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a firm carrying on business as building contractors and dealers in tiles. For the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1964-65, certain additions for bogus hundi credits were made by the ITO in the assessments on agreed basis. For the year 1963-64, addition came to be made by the ITO on the basis that the gross profits shown in the accounts of the assessee was too low to be accepted. After the completion of the assessment for the above years proceedings were initiated for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and penalties were levied in respect of all the years by the IAC. As against the orders levying penalty for the years 1960-61 to 1963-64, revision petitions had been filed before the Commissioner and against the order levying penalty for 1964-65, an appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Commissioner cancelled the penalty for 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63, but he sustained the penalty for 1963-64. As regards the o...
Edgar Wesley Vs. Emity Violet (Alias) Emity Violet Ramani Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ186
Ramaprasada Rao, CJ.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 1976 on the file of the District Judge of Coimbatore (West) sought for dissolution of his marriage with the first defendant on the ground that the first defendant had already secured a decree for judicial separation on 31st August, 1972 in O.S No. 4 of 1971 on the file of the same Court and though he was willing to live with her, it was the first defendant who obtained such a judicial separation and that he was not therefore interested in setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by her. He also alleges that the first defendant has married the second defendant who had been impleaded as a party to the suit and that the second marriage took place on 10th February, 1975. On the basis of the above pleadings he sought for a dissolution of the marriage.2. Both the defendants 1 and 2 were ex parte even in the Court below. The learned District Judge marked Exhibits A-1 and A-2 as the exhibits filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Exhibit A-1 i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »