Chennai Court April 1980 Judgments
G. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Elumalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad24
1. The point involved herein is whether by invoking Section 24(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller constituted under Act XVIII of 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be transferred to another Rent Controller. The main opposition to this petition is stemmed on the claim that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority constituted under Act XVIII of 1960 are 'personae designatae' and they are not Courts which are subordinate to the High Court, and that they will not come within the expression 'other proceedings' as contemplated under Section 24(1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further claimed that when an application filed for transfer under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act having been rejected, the present application under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, is not maintainable.2. On the first point as to whether Rent Controller is a Court or personae designatae, Mr. Sivamani relies upon the following decisions to co...
Tag this Judgment!Sarathambal Vs. Seeralan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad59
1. The third defendant is the appellant. The suit property is stated to be a vacant site. The property originally belonged to the joint family of first and fourth defendants who are brothers. In their hands, it is admitted, it was a central property. The fourth defendant executed a deed styled (Matter in Tamil omitted-Ed.) on 27-9-1948 in favour of his brother, the first defendant, releasing his half share in the suit property. At the time when he executed that document, he was unmarried. Subsequently, the first defendant sold the property to the second defendant and from the second defendant the third defendant has purchased the same. The plaintiffs are the children of the fourth defendant and they have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their share in the property on the ground that the release deed could not deprive them of their share in the property of the joint family. They also pleaded that the release deed was executed under coercion and undue influence and...
Tag this Judgment!K. Appa Rao Vs. Maragathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad57; (1981)1MLJ71
1. These petitions have been filed to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 dated 12th March, 1979, allowing the appeals filed before him by the respondents herein and dismissing the rent control petitions filed by the petitioner herein. The rent control petitions were dismissed on the ground that the denial of title of the petitioner by the tenant was bona fide. The result of that will be that the petitioner will have to file a suit for the purpose of getting the necessary relief.2. As far as the finding that the denial of title was bona fide is concerned we are of the opinion that there was abundant, material before the Appellate Authority on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that the denial of title was bona fide.3. However, what Mr. Shamdoss, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends is that the present is not a case to which the second proviso to Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent C...
Tag this Judgment!G. Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Elumalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ480
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The point involved herein is whether by invoking Section 24(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code, a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller constituted under Act XVIII of 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be transferred to another Rent Controller. The main opposition to this petition is stemmed on the claim that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority constituted under Act XVIII of 1960 are 'personae designatae' and they are not Courts which are subordinate to the High Court, and that they will not come within the expression 'other proceedings' as contemplated under Section 24(1) (b) of the Civil Procedure Code. It is further claimed that when an application filed for transfer under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act having been rejected, the present application under Section 24, Civil Procedure Code, is not maintainable.2. On the first point as to whether Rent Controller is a Court or personae designatae, Mr. Sivamani relies upon the foll...
Tag this Judgment!K. Appa Rao Vs. Maragathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ71
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. These petitions have been filed to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 dated 12th March, 1979, allowing the appeals filed before him by the respondents herein and dismissing the rent control petitions filed by the petitioner herein. The rent control petitions were dismissed on the ground that the denial of title of the petitioner by the tenant was bona fide. The result of that will be that the petitioner will have to file a suit for the purpose of getting the necessary relief.2. As far as the finding that the denial of title was bona fide is concerned we are of the opinion that there was abundant, material before the Appellate Authority on the basis of which it could come to the conclusion that the denial of title was bona fide.3. However, what Mr. Shamdoss, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends is that the present is not a case to which the second proviso to Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi Avergal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1980
Reported in: AIR1983Mad72
Singaravelu, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing W. P. No. 4682 of 1980 filed by the appellant, who is the Pandara Sannathi and Adheenakarthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam in Thanjavur District, the Head of the Mutt, hereinafter referred to as the 'Head of the Mutt', filed two writ petitions, W. P. 4682 of 1980, for a writ of prohibition and W. P. No. 4683 of 1980 for quashing the impugned notice against the State Government represented by the Secretary and Commissioner to Government for Religious Endowment, first respondent herein. The appellant is the Pandara sannathi and Adheenakarthar of the Mutt, which is a well known Saivite Religious institution, recognised as a religious institution entitled to protection guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. He has stated that as the religious Head and Preceptor he has an absolute right and freedom to initiate disciples, who are called 'Thambirans', under him and to nominate any...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Kanniah Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR414(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent, the ITO, Central Circle I, madras-34, from handing over the gold, gold articles and ornaments weighing 10,395 grams of gold and 66.9 acts. of diamond seized from him on December 21, 1973. The facts of the case nay be stated briefly as follows : The petitioner claims to carry on business in gunny bags. On December 21, 1973, his premises at 26/27, Ramanan Road, Madras, and the residence of his accountant, Vaidyanathan, at 11, Venkatesa Agraharam, Madras-4, were searched by the I. T. authorities under s. 132 of the I. T. Act. As a result of the search cash of Rs. 9,93,574 and gold, gold ornaments and diamond jewellery weighing 10,395 grams of gold and 66.9 cts. of diamond were recovered from the premises. Besides, certain documents and records were also seized by the Assistant Director of Inspection. An order under s. 132(5) of the I. T. Act was passed by the ITO. Under the said order, the first...
Tag this Judgment!K. Palanikumar Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ4Mad
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 6-3-1980 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2482 of 1979. [1980-I L.L.J. 414] : : (1980)ILLJ414Mad . 2. An advertisement appeared some time in December, 1977 in 'The Hindu' calling for applications from candidates for appointment as Clerk/Shroff under the management of the Indian Bank. the appellant herein was one such applicant. Under column 6(h) of the application, the candidate was required to furnish the names of relatives, if any, working in the Indian Bank and the nature if relationship together with the name of the branch where they work. This column was left blank by the appellant in the application filed by him. The appellant, however, was appointed as a clerk by an order dated 15-11-1978, and he was called upon to fill up column 11 of the service joining report. That column was also required the appointee to give the name or names of relations, if any, in the service of the bank and the nature of his relati...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vellappa Gounder and Sons and ors. Vs. K.S. Thirugnanasambandam Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad100
1. The land in RC No. 209/1 in Tiruppur village, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore District comprised in T. D. No. 174 was a Devadayam minor inam land and it was granted to one Mavalinga Naicker, for performing "ugranam service" in the temple of Sri. Visweswaraswarni and Veeraraghava Perumnal at Tirupur. On a reading of the provisions of the Inam Fair Register extract relating to this minor inam, the settlement Tahsildar came to the conclusion that it is personal inam burdened with service of the categories specified in Section 8 (5) of the, Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition. and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Act XXX of 1963), (here in after called the Act). This finding that it is a personal inam burdened with service is not in dispute in this case. The grantee alienated the property by way of permanent lease sometime in 1864. Subsequently the grantee sold and released the right of revision thus making the lessee an alienee of the grant itself. Though there was an attempt by the Government t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vellappa Gounder and Sons, by Partner, K. Vellappa Gounder and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ192
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The land in R. C. No. 209|1 in Tiruppur village, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore District, comprised in T.D. No. 174 was a Devadayam minor inam land and it was granted to one Mavalinga Naicker, for performing 'ugranam service' in the temple of Sri Visweswaraswami and Veeraraghava Peru-mal at Tiruppur. On a reading of the provisions of the Inam Fair Register Extract relating to this minor Inam, the Settlement Tahsildar came to the conclusion that it is a personal inam burdened with service of the categories specified in Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXX of 1963) (hereinafter called the Act). This finding that it is a personal inam burdened with service is not in dispute in this case. The grantee alienated the property by way of permanent lease sometime in 1864. Subsequently, the grantee sold and released the right of reversion thus making the lessee an alienee of the grant itself. Though there was an attempt b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »