Chennai Court August 1979 Judgments
A. Alagiyanathan Vs. M. Swaminatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ274
S. Natarajan, J.1. What falls for consideration in this revision petition, preferred by a tenant, is whether one of the two co-owners of a building is entitled to independently file a petition against a tenant to seek his eviction on one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) without the consent or knowledge of the other co-owner.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The petition premises, which is residential building was originally owned by one Rayappa Pillai and the petitioner became a tenant under him. After the death of Rayappa Pillai, his nephews, viz., the respondent and his brother succeeded to the property. By arrangement, the respondent and his brother were collecting in equal shares the rent of Rs. 27 paid by the petitioner for the building. In. that situation, the respondent filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Salem, praying for eviction of the petitioner on the...
Tag this Judgment!Ghewarchand by Power of Attorney Agent Nemichand Vs. Nagarajan and Thr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ391
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 217 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur is whether the defendants are entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act (IV of 1938) as amended by Act VIII of 1973.2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows : The first defendant for himself and on behalf of minor defendants 2 to 4 borrowed a sum Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff dated 26th January, 1968 and executed Exhibit A-1 simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The rate of interest stipulated in the mortgage bond is 12% per annum. The suit is filed by the plaintiff on the foot of the mortgage for realisation of the principal and interest from 26th June, 1978. Defendants 1 to 4 have transferred the hypotheca to the 5th defendant and therefore the 5th defendant has been impleaded in the suit.3. Defendants 1 to 4 remained ex parte. The 5th defendant filed...
Tag this Judgment!Akkaloi Ammani Chatram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad149
Ismail, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1948) was enacted to provide for the repeal of the permanent settlement, the acquisition of the rights of landholders in permanently settled and certain other estates in the then province of Madras, and the introduction of the ryotwari settlement in such estates. Section 2(3) of this Act defined the expression inam estate as meaning a zamindari or an under tenure or an inam estate. Section 2 (7) defined the expression inam. estate as meaning flan estate within the meaning of Sec. 2, clause (2) (d) of the Estates Land Act, but not including an inam village which became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (111 Amendment) Act 1936.'. Section 9 of the Act provided for the Settlement Officer determining whether an inam. village is an inam estate or not.2. Pursuant to the above statutory Provision, the Settlement Officer No. IV, Tiruchirapalli took proceedings for determinin...
Tag this Judgment!V. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the Commission of Inquiry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad89
1. To enquire into certain alleged incidents that took place at Tiruparankundram police station (in Madurai) on 24-2-1979, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification in G. 0. Ms. No. 695 Public (Law and Order-A) dated 9-4-1979, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Sec, 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, appointing Thiru Justice C. J. R. Paul as the Commission of Inquiry. The terms of the reference as set out in clause 2 of the abovesaid Government Notification, are as follows(i)To inquire into and report on the incidents that took place at Tiruparankundram police station on 24-2-1979 relating to the alleged assault on Thiru Ayyadurai, Advocate by Thiru K Rajagopal, Deputy Inspector of Police, Tiruparankundram police station and the counter allegation of assult on Thiru K. Rajagopal by Thiru V. Ayyadurat(ii) To find out whether there has been any misconduct or excess on the part of the police personnel including the Deputy Inspector of Police, Thiru K...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Vijaya Trading Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC400(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The only point involved in this case is whether the conclusion of the Tribunal with reference to Section 7-A(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is correct or not. The dealer purchases empty tins from others and uses the same as container for the oil in which he deals. It is not in dispute that while selling the tinned oil, he also sells the tins and the price which he charges includes the price of the tin also. In such a context, Section 7-A(b) of the Act is not attracted because the section uses the expression 'disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State'. In this case, the tins are sold in the State as part of the tinned oil. Hence the tax case is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!U. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the Commission of Inquiry, presided over by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ121
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. To enquire into certain alleged incidents that took place at Tiruparankundram Police Station (in Madurai) on 24th February, 1979. the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 695. Public (Law and Order-A) dated the 9th of April, 1979, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. appointing Thiru Justice C.I.R. Paul as the Commission of Inquiry. The terms of the Reference as set out in Clause 2 of the aforesaid Government Notification, are as follows:(i) To inquire and report on the incidents that took place at Tiruparankundram Police Station on the 24th February. 1979 relating to the alleged assault on Thiru V. Ayyadurai, Advocate by Thiru K. Rajagopal, Deputy Inspector of Police, Tiruparankundram Police Station and the counter allegation of assault on Thiru K. Rajagopal by Thiru V. Ayyadurai.(ii) To find out whether there has been any misconduct or excess on the part of the Po...
Tag this Judgment!The Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. M. Swaminatha Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad97; (1980)1MLJ312
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. Is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The facts leading to the reference are as follows:- The respondent is the son of one Gurumani alias Mulliah Chettiar through his first wife. The said Gurumani got Rs. 50,000 in cash in a family partition between him and his brother Swaminatha Chettiar amount was entrusted to the respondent's uncle N. S. M. S. Swaminatha Chettiar to be divided at the time of partition between the respondent, his brothers to and his father. Ponraj alias M. Kanagasabapathi Chettiar and Duralswaminathan Chettiar are also the sons of the said Gurumani through his second wife. Disputes arose between the members of the family regarding the division of the family properties. A panchayat was constituted for the purpose of amicable adjustment between the 'contesting Plaintiff At the Panchayat; it was decided that a sum of Rs. 40,000 out of the amounts left In the custody of the said Swaminathan Chettiar and c...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatesan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ41
Maheswaran, J.1. Venkatesan, Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Erode, hereinafter referred to as the appellant was convicted of offences punishable under Section 161, I. P. C. and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge did not award any separate sentence for the offence under Section 161, I. P.C. The appellant is aggrieved and has filed this appeal.2. The facts leading to his conviction need narration. The appellant was an Agricultural Income-tax Officer. P. W. 1, Chidambara Gounder, a resident of Rakkapalayam in Erode Taluk, was an agricultural income-tax asses-see. He originally had extensive lands but had only about 58 acres in 1972. He alienated about 8 acres in June 1972, and applied under Ex. P-1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Suryaprakash Gupta and ors. Vs. the Madras Piece-goods Merchants Chari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ57
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of N. S. Ramaswami, J., dated 20th July, 1976 made in Appln. No. 3419 of 1975 in E. P. No. 11 of 1975 in C.S. No. 163 of 1962. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and they are not in controversy. The appellants are the tenants and the respondent herein is the landlord. C.S. No. 163 of 1962 was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of possession of the suit property from the first defendant, whose legal representatives are the appellants herein, and in that suit a decree for recovery of possession was passed in 1963 on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties. At the time when the suit was instituted and the decree was passed, the building in question was outside the scope of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960(Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act (sic) by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act shall apply to any non-residential building or...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Sri-la-sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi Avergal, Adheenaka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ375
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Adheenakarthar, Tiruvaduthurai Adheenam and Hereditary Trustee of Sri Athmanathaswami Devathanam, Avidayar koil, Thanjavur has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the second respondent, the State passed on 28th March, 1977. The impugned order has confirmed the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras, the first respondent passed on 28th February, 1976 levying contribution and audit-fees in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 received by the petitioner by way of sale proceeds, of the sale of an item of Devasthanam property.2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: The Devasthanam is a religious institution coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for short, the Act). The Act provides for the payment of contribution by Devasthanam to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »