Chennai Court October 1951 Judgments
C. Chenchanna Naidu Vs. Praja Seva Transports Ltd., Cuddappah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad39; (1952)1MLJ448
1. This is a petition for review of our order in C. M. P. No. 605 of 1951 dated 9th January 1951 declining to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records in G. O. Ms. 5424 M. Home department, Government of Madras, dated 27th December 1950 and to quash the said Government Order. The circumstances that necessitated the filing of that petition are the following:2. The petitioner along with the first respondent herein and some others applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Cuddapah for pucca permits for running three stage carriages on Cuddappah Madanapalle route via Kurubola Kota. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of the petitioner while that of first respondent was allowed.3. Against this order an appeal was filed to the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, by the petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal cancelled the permit granted to the first respondent and directed the issue of one to the petitioner herein.4. Thereupon the first respondent preferred a revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad199; (1952)IMLJ168
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a criminal appeal filed by the learned Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused under Section 14(1), Madras Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. The short facts are; P. W. 1, Hari Rao, the Maistry under the Sanitary Inspector and P. W. 2 Ponnurangam, the Malaria Cooly, of a Panchayat Board, were deputed by P. W. 3, the Sanitary Inspector on the morning of 12-1-1951 to get hold of persons who were carrying milk for sale and to inform P. W. 3 so that he might take sample of the milk for analysis to detect adulteration. P. W. 1 saw the accused with two chumbus of milk when he was going very near the hotel run by one Balakrishna Pillai near the bus stand at Tirukoilur. P. W. 1 sent word to P. W. 3 through P. W. 2. P. W. 1 too came there when the accused was very near the hotel of D. W. 1, Balakrishna Pillai. P. W. 3 asked the accused to give a sample of the milk for being sent for analysis. The accused did not give the sample of the milk and was goin...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Ganapathi Chettiar Vs. Seth Chunilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad594; (1952)IMLJ171
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This petition raises an interesting question of law viz., whether when a Presidency Court of Small Causes orders a plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court having jurisdiction, the order in question will amount to an order entitling the party for a new trial under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner, Ganapatti Chettiar, a merchant of Erode, had filed S. C. S. No. 2627 of 1948 in the Court of Small Causes at Madras for refund of an advance of Rs. 400 paid by his son, on his behalf, to one Seth Chunilal aunerchant or commission agent at Agra, for purchase of pulses, under a contract Ex. D. 1, dated 2-3-1948, on the ground that the pulses supplied were of inferior quality arid he had repudiated the contract. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, after hearing both sides, and discussing many contentions and issues, finally passed an order, on issue 3, returning the plain...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Boya Gajji Pedda Venkatanna Alias Bodenna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad15; (1952)IMLJ244
1. The six appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge of Kurnool on three charges:(1) for an offence under Section 148, I. P. C. against all the appellants;(2) for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C. against the first accused only, for having caused the death of one Pedda Venkatanna;(3) for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C., against accused 2 to 6.2. All of them have been found guilty under Section 148, I. P. C. for which they were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each. The first accused was found guilty under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to transportation for life. The other accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149. I. P. C. but convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149, I. P. C. and they were each sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were made to run concurrently.3. This occurrence is said to have taken place on 16-6-1950, sometime between 5 and 6 p.m. On that day th...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Velayangat Devassia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad604; (1952)1MLJ12
Ramaswami, J.1. This is Criminal Appeal filed against an acquittal by the Joint Magistrate, Tellicherry, in C. A. No. 6 of 1950.2. The facts are : The accused (respondent before us) lives with his wife in Manathana Amsom. On 26-11-1949 at about 5-30 or 6 p.m. P. W. 1 the Sub-inspector of Police, Peravur, searched the accused's house in the presence of P.W. 2 and other witnesses and recovered from inside a single room of the house one jar M. O. 1 containing 14 3/4th bottles of arrack and an empty bottle, M. O. 11 which was kept by its side. P.W. 1 took M. Os. 1 and 2 into custody under a search list, Ex. P. 1 in the presence of P.W. 2 and one Joseph Kutty who have attested Ex. P. 1. The accused was also in the house at the time of the search. P. W. 1 registered a case as Crime No. 25 of 1949 of the Peravur station, prepared the first information report and without further enquiry laid the charge-sheet on 6-12-1949.3. The case for the accused was that on 26th two police constables came t...
Tag this Judgment!Mareboyina Nagamma Vs. Madala Alias Koranki Nagamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1954Mad165; (1952)IMLJ158
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed to recover possession of a plot of land 52 cents in extent. The plaintiff is the concubine of one Marobiyana Bhavanayakudu to whom this property belonged. He had a son by name Ankalu who died issueless in the year 1930 but left a widow who is the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that after the death of the son Ankalu the property belonged absolutely to Bhavanayakuau and he executed a deed of gift, Ex. P. 1 to the plaintiff on 5-6-1936. It is under this document that the plaintiff claims title to the whole of the property. On the other hand the defendant who is the daughter-in-law raised the contention that prior to the death of her husband in the year 1930, i.e., on 2-8-1929, there was a partition between the father and the son, in which the father got the western moiety and the son the eastern moiety; and so the defendant conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to the western moiety under the gift deed, Ex. P. 1 and claimed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvathammal and anr. Vs. Vagunathan Alias Kuppa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad479; (1952)1MLJ268
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the two plaintiffs in O.S. No. 344 of 1945, who are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit by the Courts below. They instituted the said suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupattur for recovering a sum of Rs. 850 for the expenses incurred in connection with the second plaintiff's marriage, and Rs. 116-3-0 interest that accrued thereon upto the date of the plaint.2. The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff and the wife of the defendant. The marriage between the first plaintiff and the defendant did not prove to be a happy one, and in or about 1925, the plaintiff separated herself from her husband on the latter agreeing to pay maintenance, as provided in Ex. P-l. At that time, the second plaintiff was only two years old. Subsequently, the defendant married a second wife, and by her had some daughters. In 1940, the defendant issued a notice under Ex. P-2 calling upon his wife no to get the second plaintiff ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vokkaligara Yengtappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad535; (1952)1MLJ62
Mack, J.1. Appellant, a youth aged 20, has been found guilty under Section 302, I. P. C., of the murder of his cousin Eranna aged about 12 by putting arsenic poison into some cooked curry with the intention of doing away with Eranna's family, particularly his father P. W. 8. Eranna alone died. P. W. 8 and others, who partook of this curry, after much purging and vomitting recovered. Appellant has been sentenced to transportation for life. Chennamma A. 2, an old woman, the mother of the second wife of the appellant's father Chennappa, was also charged with this murder along with the appellant but acquitted.2. The family back-ground, and the motive alleged, though seemingly involved, is briefly this. Appellant's father Chennappa had two wives. Ho was the son by the first wife, who died. Then Chennappa married the daughter of A. 2. The deceased boy's father Narasagowda. (P. W. 8) Chennappa and Giriappa (P. W. 12) were brothers. Estrangement between P. W. 8 and Chennappa originated some ye...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arunachalam Iyer Alias Vedachalam Iyer Vs. K.N. Lingiah and Brother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad71; (1952)2MLJ347
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The decree-holder in O. S. No. 15 of 1926 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chittoor is the appellant in all these appeals. In order to appreciate the points arising in these appeals it is necessary to state briefly the facts leading up to these appeals.2. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, against his uncle the 1st defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the family properties and for other incidental reliefs. The 2nd defendant who was the daughter of the 1st defendant was impleaded as she had a claim for maintenance against the family properties. This suit ended in a compromise decree on 8-10-1928 and under the terms of the compromise the plaintiff was to be paid a sum of Rs. 6000 in lieu of his claim, Rs. 4000 being payable on the 29th of Ani 1934 and the balance to be paid in two instalments subsequently. It was provided in the compromise decree that for the due performance of the decree a charge should...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. the President, District Board, Nellore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad253; (1952)1MLJ38
1. The Constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Madras General Sales Tax and the Madras Tobacco (Taxation of Sales and Registration) Act, Act XIII of 1955 -- which we, shall refer to as the impugned Act -- is the subject of challenge in these writ petitions.2. Section 2 of the impugned Act whose validity is challenged in these proceedings amended Section 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.3. The general scheme of taxation provided by the Madras General Sales Tax Act is the imposition of a multiple point levy by taxing the turnover of every dealer carrying on business within the State. This is achieved by the charging Section 3 which taxes every dealer on his annual turnover and the standard rate of tax provided by Sub-section 1 (b) and is three pies for every rupee of the turnover. Section 5 enacts the exemptions and reductions in the imposition of such a multiple point tax and the main feature of the "restriction" imposed is that in regard to the commodities specified in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »