Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad333
1. The constitutional validity of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, XXV of 1955 is challenged in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Sub-Collector, Dindigul, dated 17-4-1956 who acting under Section 4 of the Act directed the restoration of the 2nd respondent, Rakkappan Servat, to the possession of certain lands belonging to the petitioner,2. The land which forms the subject-matter of the dispute in the present proceedings is of an extent of about 3 acres situated in the village of Mannadimangalarn in Nilakottai taluk. The 2nd respondent claimed that he along with one Ayyaswami Pillai was jointly cultivating these lands under a lease deed executed on their behalf in favour of one Sadastvam pillai. Their case was that the joint family of the petitioner and his elder brother was the owner, of the land and that in or about May, 1953, the petitioner's elder brother Rajagopala Aiyar now deceased leased the lands to Sadasivam Pillai for a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1960CriLJ92
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence by the Special Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in C. C. No. 2 of 1958.2. The accused P.S. Aravamudha Aiyangar was employed as Progress Supervisor, Golden Rock Workshop, Southern Railway. It is in evidence that notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence in question the accused was getting a salary of Rs. 320 plus Rs, 70 dearness allowance, per month, and his. wife seems to be a musical instructor having occasional engagements : the All India Radio also, he was. not in flourshing circumstances. Till May 1957 his salary stood attached in execution of a simple money decree and he was getting only between Rs, 156 odd and Rs. 197 odd by way of nett salary.It is also possible that the accused was leading a standard of life a cut above his resources. But in these cases of corruption it is not possible, however, to find out the motive, because incorruptibility depends upon the strength of charact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad57; (1966)2MLJ63
(1) W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a reference made by one of us(srinivasan, J). It was a proceeding in prohibition by Messrs Raval and Co. (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras(4th respondent) from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. 1816 of 1963 and Appn. No. 2443 of 1963 in C.S. 163 of 1962, in which certain clearly inter-linked question are involved. Our learned brother(Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this court as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, has been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies both as regards the fixation of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter of eviction and the grounds for eviction; while certain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1966)2MLJ68
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. W.P. No. 1124 of 1963 comes before us on a Reference made by one of us (K. Srinivasan, J.). It was a proceeding in Prohibition, of Messrs. Raval & Company (petitioners), seeking to restrain the respondents, including the Chief Rent Controller, Madras (fourth respondent), from prosecuting or proceeding with a petition for the fixation of fair rent, under the Madras Rent Control Acts. Connected with this are two other proceedings, namely, C.R.P. No. 1816 of 1963 and Application No. 2443 of 1964 in C. S. No. 163 of 1962, in which certain closely inter-linked questions are involved. Our learned brother (Srinivasan, J.) felt the difficulty that the catena of decisions of this Court, as far as the Madras Rent Control Acts are concerned, had been only in the consistent directions that these Acts did purport to interfere with contractual tenancies, both as regards the fixation1 of fair rents and as regards the respective rights of landlords and tenants, in the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ439
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. W.P. No. 3544 of 1970. - Over an extent of 122.93 acres of land in Athipet North a licence to manufacture salt - therein for a period of 25 years, commencing from 1st November, 1953, was granted in favour of Smt. Udaya Nagarathinammal. On a due application for transfer of the licence the same was transferred in favour of one L. Arunachalam Chettiar. At or about that time L. Arunachalam Chettiar was in need of finance and therefore he associated the petitioner with him for financing the project of manufacture and sale of salt in the factory. In consideration of such financial help rendered, the petitioner expressed his desire to become a joint licensee. In consequence thereto and on representations made for the purpose, the petitioner was recognised, on 3rd September, 1959, as joint licensee for the manufacture of salt in the factory along with L. Arunachalam Chettiar.2. Presumably in view of the advances made by the petitioner he wanted to safeguard his in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)2MLJ47
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, namely, Writ Petitions Nos. 1743 and 1773 of 1972, the facts leading to which may be stated at some length. On the basis of the information that one K.P. Hamsa had received about a lakh of rupees on account of what is generally known as 'compensatory payment' and was about to take the money to Mattool in Kerala State for disbursement, officers of the Madras Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Directorate) kept a watch for the suspect at the Madras Central Railway Station on the 7th of October, 1969. K.P. Hamsa, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1773 of 1972, was found boarding the West Coast Express train when he was intercepted and a search of his person and baggage yielded a sum of Rs. 84,000 in the form of Indian currency notes. On interrogation, he stated th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1978)1MLJ536
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The landlady under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The first respondent was the tenant and respondents 2 to 5 are arrayed as sub-tenants. The landlady filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tenkasi, H.R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1973 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. Certain facts not in dispute may be stated. The premises originally belonged to the first respondent and he othied the same in favour of one Ganapathi Joshier for Rs. 1,500 on 30th July, 1969 under Exhibit A-1. The first respondent himself took the building on lease from the said Ganapathi Joshier under Exhibit A-2. Under Exhibit A.2 the rate of rent reserved was Rs. 15 per month fora period of three years and thereafter, the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 22.50 Ps. On 15th November, 1972, the said Ganapathi Joshier assigned the othi in favour of the petitioner for Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ477
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these revisions are against the same judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. C.R.P. No. 3299 of 1991 is filed under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act, and the other Revision, namely, C.R.P. No. 489 of 1992 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. The material facts may be summarised as follows:Revision petitioner is the landlord of the building. There was an earlier proceeding between the same parties for immediate demolition and reconstruction of the building which was then in existence. Even at the time when the present respondent was a tenant of the then building, he was occupying an area of 736 sq. ft. eviction petition filed by the revision petitioner was allowed, and the respondent herein filed a Rent Control Appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order, and a revision taken to this Court also met with the same fate. Later, the respondent herein filed a Special Leave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ270; 2007(5)CTC392
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 13.8.2003 passed in W.P.No. 10291 of 2003.2. The issue relates to payment of subsistence allowance payable to the appellant for the period of suspension pending disciplinary action.3. The appellant was placed under suspension by the first respondent on 25.1.1999 pending disciplinary action against him. Alleging non payment of subsistence allowance, the appellant preferred PSA No. 2/02 and 3/02 claiming subsistence allowance for two different periods. By order, dated 12.7.2002, the third respondent ordered a sum of Rs. 12122/- in PSA.No. 2/02 and Rs. 53276/- in PSA No. 3/02 to be payable by the first respondent to the appellant. Both the appellant and the first respondent preferred PAA Case No. 5/02-1 and 5/02 before the second respondent. The second respondent also confirmed the order of the third respondent by his order, dated 24.2.2003.4. Aggrieved against the same, the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: This Revision is filed under Section 379 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order, dated 18th May 2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2014 in E.O.C.C.No.84 of 2001 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Court No.II), Egmore, Chennai 600 008.) 1. This petition is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.524 of 2014 in E.O.C.C.No.84 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Court No.II), Egmore, Chennai, dated 18.05.2015 discharging the respondent from the case. 2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:- The petitioner/complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the said Act r/w Sub Section 3(3) and (4) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Madras-8 stating that the accused had acquired forei...
Tag this Judgment!