Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)ILLJ269Mad
order1. the facts of the case which are not in dispute lie in a very short compass. the petitioner was serving as the headmaster in hajee mansoorsha oriental arabic high school, the correspondent of which is the third respondent herein. he was dismissed from service by an order dated 1st january 1988 with effect from 4th january 1988. the order of dismissal set out the following six reasons therefor :- 1) misbehaviour with a lady teacher by name sumathi elizabeth; 2) english coaching to x std. students was insufficient; 3) using bad words when speaking to students; 4) insulting the organizer of nutritious meals centre of sulthan ahamed primary school; 5) compelling the teachers improperly and getting their signatures : and 6) non-co-operation with the management and misuse of power thereby causing confusion and disturbance to the proceedings in school and speaking in loud voice openly degrading the management. 2. admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to explain his conduct or show cause against the termination of services. no enquiry of any type was held by the management. the petitioner filed an application on 5th january 1988 before the chief educational officer. villupuram, complaining against the dismissal order, passed by the management. he sent a reminder on 11th january 1988. the chief educational officer is said to have forwarded the same to the district educational officer for action under intimation to the petitioner dated 25th january .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad906; (1939)1MLJ705
venkataramana rao, j.1. the question in this appeal relates to the validity of a sale of immovable property in execution of the decree in o.s. no. 290 of 1934 on the file of the district munsif's court of narsapur obtained by the appellant against one nekkanti suryanarayana and his two sons. the property was sold on 2nd october, 1935 and purchased by the appellant the decree-holder himself. an application was made by the said nekkanti suryanarayana the first judgment-debtor to set aside the sale alleging that there were material irregularities and fraud in the conduct of the sale in consequence whereof the property did not fetch a fair price. he also impeached the sale on the ground that before the date of the sale he had filed an application in the sub-court of narsapur for his being declared an insolvent, that the said petition was admitted and an interim receiver appointed, that he applied to the court (the district munsif of narsapur) to stop the sale but the court declined to do so and the sale was therefore in contravention of section 52 of the provincial insolvency act. the learned district munsif, on a consideration of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that there was no fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of the sale that the price realised at the time of the sale was a reasonable price and in regard to the second objection he held that there was no substance in it. the learned subordinate judge in appeal concurred in the view of the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)1MLJ382
orderg. ramanujam, j.1. this appeal arises out of an order of the lower court rejecting the appellant's petition under order 21, rule 90 of the code of civil procedure for setting aside the sale of a house held on 14th august, 1972 in execution of a decree in o.s. no. 445 of 1969.2. the 2nd respondent obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 in o.s. no. 448 of 1969 and to realise the decree amount he filed e.p. no. 33 of 1972 for sale of the property. the property was actually sold on 14th august, 1972 for rs. 27,700. the appellant who was the 3rd defendant in the suit had filed e.a. no. 98 of 1973 to set aside the said sale on three grounds (1) that there was no proper service of notice on him before the sale was ordered; (2) that there was no proper publicity given to the proposed sale of the property; (3) that the property which is worth more than rs. 60,000 was sold only for a sum of rs. 27,700 which was resulted in considerable loss and prejudice to him. in the counter-affidavit filed by the decree holder it has been stated that the appellant was aware of all the proceedings both prior and after the decree that he was served with notice at every stage, and that he wantonly absented himself from attending court, that there was proper proclamation and publication and that the property being an old building has fetched a proper price.3. the court below after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by either of the parties has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ122
b.s. somasundaram, j.1. the appellant herein is an exporter and importer at madras doing business under the name and style of 'crescent traders.' during january, 1969, he exported 35 kgs. of birds' nests to m/s. international trading company at singapore. sub-section (1) of section 12 of the foreign exchange regulation act, 1947 (hereinafter called the act) states that for these exports, the party should file a declaration in form g.r. 1 to the prescribed authority stating that the amount representing the full export value of the goods have either been paid or will be paid within the prescribed period in the prescribed manner. such a declaration was filed by the appellant as per exhibit p-5, and in it he stated that the value of the goods was rs. 700 and that he was exporting the same as a seller. exhibit p-8, the invoice for this consignment in favour of the international trading company at singapore, also gave the same value. the buyer company opened a letter of credit as per exhibit p-9 for this amount and the export was made as per the shipping bill exhibit p-10. even in this bill the aforesaid value was given. there was a search of the house of this appellant by p.w. 1, the chief enforcement officer on the 27th of january, 1969. during this search, exhibit p-3, file was seized. exhibit p-3 (a), the statement of accounts signed by the international trading company, disclosed that 30 kgs. of birds' nests were sold for 900 dollars. deducting the amount already sent to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]92ITR145(Mad)
ramanujam, j.1. one g. venkataswami naidu died on july 5, 1957. the accountable person had declared the principal value of the estate of the deceased at rs. 2,03,446. the assistant controller of estate duty, however, determined the value of the estate at rs. 7,22,994. while determining that value he valued the shares of messrs. janardana mills ltd. held by the deceased and the firm of messrs. g. venkataswami naidu & co. of which the deceased was a partner at rs. 140 against the market quotation of rs. 87 per share in the madras stock exchange on the date of the death of the deceased. he also valued the managing agency rights of messrs. g. venkataswami naidu and co. at rs, 10,00,000 and fixed the deceased's 1/4th share therein at rs. 2,50,000. the additions in respect of these two items were questioned by the accountable persons by filing an appeal before the central board of direct taxes. 2. before the board, it was contended that the 500 shares which were owned by the deceased individually were lying pledged with the banks at the time of his death for obtaining overdraft facilities and that the said shares were sold in 1959 at the rates ranging from rs. 67 to rs. 70 per share, and that, therefore, these shares should be valued at the price forwhich they were actually sold. as regards the shares held by the firm in which the deceased was a partner, it was contended that the shares should be valued only at rs. 87 per share being the market quotation in the madras stock .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1933Mad613; (1933)65MLJ194
sundaram chetty, j.1. plaintiff is the appellant. he sued for the recovery of a sum of rs. 37,065-9-11 by sale of the mortgaged properties on the strength of an usufructuary mortgage deed, exhibit a, which according to the plaintiff's contention contains a personal covenant to pay, whereby he is enabled to sue for the sale of the mortgaged properties, though the mortgage deed is styled as an usufructuary mortgage. the learned subordinate judge dismissed the suit by reason of his findings on issues 3 and 4. on a construction of the terms of a mortgage deed, he has held that there was no personal covenant to pay the mortgage amount and the suit for sale of the mortgaged properties is not therefore maintainable. this is the main question argued in this appeal.2. the suit mortgage deed, exhibit a, is an unduly long document and a full translation of it is given in the judgment of the lower court. for the purpose of deciding the point at issue, the following extract from the document would suffice:as we represented to you that there is some extra income in the property till the term stated here below, you should give us credit to a sum of rs. 6,625 from the principal amount and you have agreed thereto out of concession to us. deducting the said sum of rs. 6,625, on payment (when paid) in one lump sum on the kalavadhi vishu sankramana of dundubhi year (1922-23) of the balance of rs. 4,000 as also any arrears of rent that may remain due with your consent from any member of our .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1916)ILR39Mad479
seshagiri ayyar, j.1. the official receiver of tanjore, in whom the property belonging to the insolvent vested under an adjudication order, issued a proclamation for the sale of the properties in dispute. in it he stated that the properties would be sold subject to two mortgages subsisting in favour of certain secured creditors. the sale was fixed for the 21st march 1914. on that day the official receiver noted in the sale-proclamation 'intending bidders present say that the properties would fetch a better price if they are sold free of mortgage.... under these circumstances in modification of the terms of the sale-proclamation, i propose to sell now the properties free of encumbrance.' the properties were purchased by the, appellant for rs. 22,000. this was on the 22nd march. on the 9fch of april an application was made to the district court by the respondent, who is also one of the creditors of the insolvent, for setting aside the sale on the ground that the variation in the sale-proclamation was irregular, that if the properties had been advertised to be sold free of encumbrance, a larger number of bidders would have been present, that she was prejudiced by the action of the official receiver in directing the sale at the last moment free of encumbrance, and that there was an offer of rs. 25,000 for the property. for the above reasons she prayed that the sale be set aside and that a fresh auction be held in respect of the properties. the district judge was of opinion that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad217; (1952)2MLJ713
1. appellant is the south indian railway impleaded in the suit filed in 1945 as the governor general in council, new delhi, represented by the general manager. there has been much evolutionary change since, with all the railways in the union nationalised and today the appellant is the dominion of india. the original plaintiff was adam haji pir muhammad esack and he too is now represented by the custodian of evacuee property. he will however, be referred to in this judgment for convenience as the plaintiff. he sued to recover rs. 5600 from the south indian railway in respect of a consignment of 200 bags of bengal gram, which were booked at cawnpore on the g.i.p. railway on 1-11-1944 to cuddalore on the south indian railway. the learned subordinate judge decreed his suit in full.2. the relevant facts are these: plaintiff, a wholesale dealer in grains, groceries and so on had business ramifications throughout what was then british india. he had a branch at cawnpore and another at cuddalore. the 200 bags of bengal gram were, according to invoice no. 6 of 1944 ex. p. 1, dated 1-11-1944, consigned in the name of someone by name r.f.c. to one m. bagavandas. subsequent to the consignment, bagawsndas endorsed ex. p. 1 to the plaintiff, who appears to have purchased it after it was consigned for transit. it is common ground that the bags arrived at arko-nam in a full sealed wagon on the broad gauge railway and were there transhipped into two meter "gauge wagons m.c. 413 and m.c. 60 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad148
order1. all the above matters are connected and arise out of the same proceedings, and therefore they are dealt with together.in o. p. no. 3 of 1965 on the file of the district court, coimbatore, one d. s. swamikannu pillai was appointed as personal as well as property guardian of his minor sons, paranjothi and five others under provisions of the guardians and wards act. the minors get certain properties by way of gift from a relation, one d. rejendran pillai. even at the time of the gift by the said rajendran pillai there was a subsisting mortgage debt on the property gifted. the mortgagee filed a suit o. s. no. 309 of 1964 and obtained a decree. on the ground that the mortgagee was taking out execution proceedings to realize the sum of rs. 4,000/- due under the mortgage and that if the property is sold in court auction it would fetch a low price, the said guardian filed an application before the lower court in i. a. 526 of 1965 seeking permission to sell the property of the minors by private sale and undertaking to invest the balance of the sale proceeds after discharging the mortgage debt in government securities and to withdraw the interest thereon from time to time for the maintenance and education of the minors. the mother of the minors also filed an affidavit stating that the sale by private negotiation would be advantageous to the minors, in support of the application made by the father-guardian. the court passed on order on 6-12-1965 in that application as follows .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 148Ind.Cas.1029
1. plaintiff is the appellant. he sued for the recovery of a sum of rs. 37,065-9-11 by sale of the mortgaged properties on the strength of a usufructuary mortgage deed, ex. a, which according to the plaintiff's contention contains a personal covenant to pay, whereby he is enabled to sue for the sale of the mortgaged properties though the mortgage deed is styled as a usufructuary mortgage. the learned subordinate judge dismissed the suit by reason of his findings on issues nos. 3 and 4. on a construction of the terms of the mortgage deed, he has held that there was no personal convenant to pay the mortgage amount and the suit for sale of the mortgaged properties is not therefore maintainable. this is the main question argued in this appeal. the suit mortgage deed ex. a. is an unduly long document and a full translation of it is given in the judgment of the lower court. for the purpose of deciding the point at issue, the following extract from the document would suffice:as we represented to you that there is some extra income in the property, till the term stated here below, you should give us credit to a sum of rs. 6,625 from the principal amount and you have agreed thereto out of concession to us. deducting the said sum of rs. 6,625, on payment (when paid) in one lump sum in the kalavadhi vishu sankramana of dundeebi year 1922-237 of the balance of rs. 4,000 as also any arrears of rent that may remain due with your consent from any member of our family who may take the .....
Tag this Judgment!