Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: chennai Year: 1967 Page 1 of about 49 results (0.029 seconds)

Jan 23 1967 (HC)

Loganathan, Minor and ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Naicker and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-23-1967

Reported in : AIR1969Mad15

..... transpires that shortly after the mediation there was a criminal complaint by the third defendant charging the present second defendant with offences under sections 324, 325, 404 and 384 i.p.c. actually the complaint was ..... suit on the promissory note defendants 1 and 2 raised various contentions; but eventually settled the claim for a sum of rs. 16000 taking three months' time to pay. the mediation was on 1-6-1962 and the promissory note for the sum of rs. 20000 which defendants 1 and 2 had to pay was executed on 9-7-1962. it ..... well at a heavy cost. later on defendants 3 to 5 coming of age and insisting upon an accounting for the assets handled by defendants 1 and 2 at a mediation it was decided that defendants 1 and 2 should take all the then standing crops, retain the cattle and moveables in their possession and pay defendants 3 to 5 a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1967 (HC)

Loganathan (Minor) and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Naicker and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-23-1967

Reported in : (1968)1MLJ422

..... . it transpires that shortly after the mediation there was a criminal complaint by the third defendant charging the present second defendant with offences under sections 324,325, 404 and 384, indian penal code. actually the complaint was ..... on the promissory note defendants 1 and 2 raised various contentions; but eventually settled the claim for a sum of rs. 16,000 taking three months' time to pay. the mediation was on 1st june, 1952 and the promissory note for the sum of rs. 20,000 which defendants 1 and 2 had to pay was executed on 9th july, 1952 ..... well at a heavy cost. later on defendants 3 to 5 coming of age and insisting upon an accounting for the assets handled by defendants 1 and 2 at a mediation it was decided that defendants 1 and 2 should take all the then standing crops, retain the cattle and moveables in their possession and pay defendants 3 to 5 a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1967 (HC)

Kuttisamy thevar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-18-1967

Reported in : (1967)2MLJ503

..... the deceased duraipandi were proceeding to the village puthupatti by bus. they claim to have gone there, as p.w. l's services were sought by one ena konar for mediating in a panchayat to settle the dispute between the daughter and son-in-law of ena konar. on the way, the bus stopped at mukkudal, in front of a printing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 1967 (HC)

Mary Stella Vs. Anantha Sakayanathan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-03-1967

Reported in : AIR1968Mad158

..... chidambaram. according to the allegations of the petitioner after the respondent left for panruti he deserted her without reasonable excuse for more than five years and he also intimated through mediators that he would not return to his wife or take her to live with him on any account. on these allegations, she filed a petition before the learned district judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1967 (HC)

S. R. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-24-1967

Reported in : [1968]70ITR397(Mad)

..... question. the nature of the trade practice in such cases has been fully brought out at page 889 of the report, where an extract from the 'principles of accounting inter-mediate' by finney and miller is found in the following terms :'when a corporation is about to issue additional share, each holder of stock of the class to be issued may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 1967 (HC)

Chinna Pillai Vs. N. Govindaswami Naidu and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-31-1967

Reported in : AIR1969Mad191

1. the 1st defendant in o. s. no. 82 of 1963 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge of madurai is the petitioner in c. k. p. no. 816 of 1966 and the 2nd defendant is the petitioner in c. b, p. no. 1944 of 1965. the plaintiff filed the suit in the court of the subordinate judge of madurai under section 9 of the specific relief act, 1877. the plaintiff's case is that he was a lessee under the 1st defendant and from the year 1953-54 the plaintiff as such lessee was in occupation of the vegetarian and the non-vegetarian stalls belonging to the 1st defendant and situate in the central bus stand, madurai. the plaintiff also avers that during 1954-55 he carried out extensive improvements to both the stalls at a cost of about rs. 30,000/- and the stalls as they exist to-day were not constructed by the municipality. the lease deeds exs, b-13 and b-14 were executed both between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and they cover the period commencing from 1-4-1960 and expiring with 31-3-1963. the plaintiff is said to have applied for a renewal of the lease on 14-2-1963 after having paid the licence fee for running the respective hotels for the year 1963-64 under exs. a. 61 and a.62. on 14-3-1963 the 1st defendant passed a resolution stating that the leasehold interest in the two stalls in question would be auctioned on 22-3-63. the plaintiff petitioned on 21-3-1963 asking for a renewal of the lease and indicating therein that he has practically reconstructed the stalls at a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1967 (HC)

K.M. Jamal Mydeen Vs. the State of Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-02-1967

Reported in : [1968]22STC45(Mad)

ordervenkatadri, j.1. the petitioner jamal mydeen is a lessee of coconut topes and he has filed this batch of writ petitions to quash the orders of assessment made for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 by the deputy commercial tax officer, papanasam, on 31st october, 1964, on the ground that he is not liable to pay sales tax on the sale of coconuts to messrs khader batcha sons, ayyampettai.2. the petitioner is, as already stated, a lessee of coconut topes from several persons in thanjavur district. he contends before me that he is not liable to pay sales tax, because under section 2(r) of the general sales tax act, he is exempted from liability to sales tax, as the usufruct of the coconut trees is agricultural or horticultural produce. to support his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a full bench decision of this court in narayana v. subramanian i.l.r. 1937 mad. 364 where it was held that coconuts are fruits, coconut trees are fruit trees and coconut plantation is a fruit garden and as such coconuts are horticultural produce. reference has also been made to arumugha vettian v. angamuthu nattar (1965) 1 m.l.j. 170 where it was held that where a person has been given a right to cut and remove coconuts from a grove, his right to enter upon the land would be in the nature of a licence if it is a case where he is to remove the goods immediately upon the grant of the right, but that where he is entitled to the usufruct from the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1967 (HC)

Muthukumaran Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-11-1967

Reported in : (1967)2MLJ264

orderp.s. kailasam, j.1. this petition is field by the president of the manangorai panchayat for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the resolution dated 14th june, 1966 of the manangorai panchayat and to quash the same.2. the members of the panchayat gave notice of a motion of no-confidence against-the petitioner and the tahsildar of thanjavur issued notice to the petitioner of the meeting on 23rd may, 1966 for considering the motion of no-confidence. the meeting was subsequently adjourned to 31st may, 1966 as a woman member, who was co-opted to the panchayat gave a memo. stating that she has filed an o.p, under section 28 of the madras panchayats act, 1958, and that the meeting might be adjourned. the petitioner also intimated the tahsildar that he and his followers would not participate in the meeting. the tahsildar adjourned the meeting, and on 7th june, 1966 issued a fresh notice fixing the date of the meeting as 14th june, 1966. on 14th june, 1966 at the meeting the motion of no-confidence was passed.3. mr. panchapagesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the validity of the resolution of no-confidence on three ground's. he submitted that section 152(10) of the madras panchayats act prohibits any debate on a motion and as there was a discussion relating to the petition filed by the woman member on 31st may, 1966 the proceeding should be held as void. secondly, he submitted that the two of the members were not served with notice of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1967 (HC)

Public Prosecutor Vs. P.C. Raju and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-30-1967

Reported in : 1968CriLJ1378; (1968)1MLJ274

alagiriswami, j.1. the coimbatore central co. operative stores was issued a permit in 1957 by the joint chief controller of imports and exports, madras, for the export of 520 tons of chillies to ceylon. the purchaser in ceylon was the co-operative wholesale establishment. the board of directors of the coimbatore central co-operative stores allotted this quantity of section 20 tons at follows:pollachi co-operative sales society 200 tonsudamalpet cooperative sales society 200 tonsdharapuram co-operative sales society 50 tonscoimbatore co-operative marketingsociety 20 tonsgobi co-operative sales society 50 tons__________520 tonsas against the 400 tons allotted to the pollachi co-operative sales society and udamalpet co- operative sales society, it is found that they exported only 3581 bags (40 bags are equal to a ton). the dharapuram co-operative sales society is said so have exported 3628 bags. the coimbatore co-operative marketing society 520 bags, the gobi co-operative sales society 3210 bags, and the karamadai sales society, to which no allotment was made at all, is said to have supplied 5702 bags. the contract with the ceylon cooperative wholesale establishment was for supply at the rate of rs. 115 per cwt. the various affiliated sales societies were to supply to the coimbatore central co-operative stores at rs. 98 per cwt. the coimbatore central co-operative stores was to purchase these chillies only from the various affiliated co-operative sales societies. these societies .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 1967 (HC)

The Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Wahab and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-09-1967

Reported in : AIR1969Mad280; 1969CriLJ918; (1968)1MLJ306

kailasam, j.1. this appeal is remanded by the supreme court for determination of the question whether the appellant is guilty of an offence under section 39 of the indian electricity act, 1910 as the question whether the chief engineer, kumbakonam electric supply corporation was the 'person aggrieved' had not been determined by this court.2. six persons were tried by the sub-magistrate of papanasam for an offence under section 379, i. p. c. read with section 39 of the indian electricity act, 1910 and section 44(c) and (d) of the said act. all the accused were acquitted by the sub-magistrate and the state filed an appeal against the order of acquittal. during the hearing of the appeal in this court, it was submitted that the prosecution of an offence alleged to have been committed by the accused under section 39 of the indian electricity act could not be instituted except at the instance of an 'aggrieved person'. the question whether dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electrical energy which was deemed to be theft by virtue of section 39 of the indian electricity act, 1910, will amount to an offence against that act, or one under section 379, i. p. c., was referred to a full bench. the full bench answered the reference as follows--'the offence of dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electricity will not be one coming within the mischief of section 50 indian electricity act, but one under section 379. i. p. c., read with section 39 of that act'.after the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //