Chennai Court March 1957 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. M.S. Palaniappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad736; 1957CriLJ1294
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in C. C. No. 35 of 1956 on his file.2. The prosecution is for an offence under Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondents were prosecuted for keeping adulterated bengal gram flour for sale. On analysis it was found to contain an artificial water-soluble yellow colouring matter derived from coal tar. A preliminary objection was raised before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that this prosecution cannot lie, although there may be a contravention of Rule 28 (d) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act made under Section 20 of Act III of 1918. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection and without going into the evidence acquitted the accused. The learned Magistrate was not at all justified in upholding the preliminary objection. Section 25(2) of Act XXXVII of 1954 clearly saves all rules, regulations and bye-laws relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Reddi Vs. K. Doraiswami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad715
1. This appeal originally came up before Krishna-swami Naidu J. who referred it to a Division Bench by the following order :"I should consider that this second appeal may be heard by a Bench in view of the point raised by Mr. N. Appu Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant that in the case of a promissory note which becomes void by reason of a material alteration under Section 87 the principle embodied in Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act could be applied; end the person who has received a benefit under the negotiable instrument, treating it as a contract, can not retain the benefit. In support of it, he relied on the observation of Abdur Reh-man J. in the decision in Krishnacharana Padhi v. Gourochanoro Dyono Sumanto, AIR 1940 Mad. 62 : 1939-2 Mad L. J. 686, (A) which runs thus :The promissory note having become void, the defendant who had received an advantage under the instrument is bound to restore it or to make compensation for it. There seems to be no reason why the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami and Co., Chemists by Proprietor Vs. Coimbatore Municipali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ37
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Second Class Bench of Magistrates of Coimbatore for an offence under Section 250 read with Section 338 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the District Magistrate on appeal.2. The petitioner is running a druggist and chemist shop at door No. 26/273, Rajah Street, Coimbatore. In his shop he has kept a frigidaire with 1/8th horse power. He did not obtain any licence or permission from the Municipality to keep this frigidaire. It is for not obtaining this permission that he was prosecuted as having offended the provisions of Section 250(1)(b) read with Section 338 of the District Municipalities Act.3. The facts are not in dispute; that is to say that the petitioner, as the Proprietor of the druggist and chemist shop at the premises above mentioned, is keeping a frigidaire, and the power of the motor is 1/8th horse power. The petitioner has obtained the necessary licence and per...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Pillai Vs. K.R. Pichai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ396
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the preliminary judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in a suit for accounts, O.S. No. 30 of 19512. The facts are:--The plaintiff Karuppiah Pillai was conducting a money-lending firm at Kuaa Lumpur (Malaya) under the name and style of PR. K. KR. It has been managed by agents appointed by him under the terms and conditions obtaining amongst the Nattukottai Chettiars. The first defendant who is a close relation of the plaintiff was sent to Kuala Lumpur as the agent of the plaintiff, since his son Narayana Pillai was coming back to India. The conditions of service under which the first defendant was appointed as agent have been set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint. In accordance with the practice prevailing in those parts the first defendant executed a salary chit to the plaintiff on 24th November, 1939 and left for Kuala Lumpur on 7th January, 1940 and reached there on 22nd January, 1940. The plaintiff's son executed a p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Retta Koravan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad714; 1957CriLJ1284
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are petitioners. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate (II). Madural for an offence under Section 224 IPC and each of them , was sentenced to R.I. for one year. Accused 3, 5 and 6 were convicted under Sections 147 and 225 IPC and each of them was sentenced to RI for one year under each count, the sentences to run concurrently . On appeal the Sessions Judge of Madurai set - aside the conviction and sentence of accused 3, 5 and 6 under Section 147 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentences of accused 1 and 2 under Section 224 IPC and of accused 3, 5 and 6 under Section 225 IPC. 2. In connection with a prohibition raid, accused 1 and 2 were arrested, handcuffed and taken by the police. Two other Koravars also were handcuffed and taken by the police. While those persons were being taken to the police station, on the way accused 3 to 6 and some others came in a body and demanded the release of accused 1 a...
Tag this Judgment!The Anamallais Bus Transport (Private) Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner, Dhar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad781
1. The petitioner is a motor bus transport operator, with a branch at Dharapuram Municipality, governed by the provisions of the District Municipalities Act (Madras Act V of 1920), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The precise points wherefrom a bus should commence its journey and the point where the journey should end are fixed by the authorities under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. It was common ground, that there was no bus stand as such in the Dharapuram Municipality, which one or more of the transport operators could or were required to resort to for the commencement of the outward journey or for the termination of the trip.The petitioner was one of six bus transport operators for the authorised routes, for each of which Dharapuram was a terminal station. The petitioner's buses commenced the outward journeys on their daily trips from the petitioner's premises. The return journey ended at these premises. There was a booking office on the...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Karuppiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ6
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the appellate Court.2. The respondent applied for a license to instal an 1 H.P. Electric Motor and for running it. The application is dated 14th March, 1955. An order was passed by the Panchayat Board on 21st April, 1955, in the following terms:The matter of granting permission to Sri S.N. Karuppiah Pillai for installing an 1 H.P. Electric Motor for nib works, is receiving attention and he is further informed that he should not instal or run the machine until and unless definite orders are issued by the undersigned.Subsequently, according to the evidence given by P.W. 2 a clerk in the Sathur Panchayat Board, the Panchayat Board appears to have decided to grant a license. This resolution was passed about a month prior to the witness giving evidence, which was on 30th August, 1955. The license, therefore, must have been issued within a short time after his giving evidence. The Panchayat Board unf...
Tag this Judgment!The Anamalais Bus Transport (Private) Limited Vs. the Commissioner, Dh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ443
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is a motor bus transport operator with a branch at Dharapuram Municipality, governed by the provisions of the District Municipalities; Act (Madras Act V of 1920), herein-after referred to as the Act. The precise points wherefrom a bus should commence its journey and the point where the journey should end are fixed by the authorities under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It was common ground that there was no bus stand as such in the Dharapuram Municipality, which one or more of the transport operators could or were required to resort to for the commencement of the outward journey or for the termination of the trip. The petitioner was one of six transport operators for the authorised routes, for each of which Dharapuram was a terminal station. The petitioner's buses commenced the outward journeys on their daily trips from the petitioner's premises. The return journey ended at these premises. There was a book...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Narayanaswami Chetty, Sole Proprietor of R.V.N. Chandrasekhara Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad43; (1957)2MLJ328
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal and the memorandum of objections are against the judgment of our learned brother Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in C.S. No. 363 of 1949 on the Original Side of this Court. The suit was one by a buyer for recovery of damages for non-delivery, and the claim made was for Rs. 51,499-6-0. The learned Judge held, that the defendants (the sellers) were in default, and decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff has filed this appeal, and the excess amount claimed in it, is confined to Rs. 17,349. The defendants (sellers) have filed a memo, of cross-objections, disputing the learned Judge's finding regarding breach on their part, and on this basis pray for the setting aside of the decree for Rs. 3,000 passed against them.2. The two points therefore that arise for consideration are : (1) The correctness of the finding of the learned trial Judge that it was the defendants who were guilty of breaking the contract. (2) The correctness of the quantum of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Marudayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad722
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Additional, First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, for an offence under Section 408, I. P. C., and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. It is against the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore the present revision has been filed. 2. The facts of the case are these -- The petitioner was employed as a cashier in one of the mills in Coimbatore called Kamala Mills. It is alleged that he was so employed almost from the very inception of the Mills, i.e., for over ten years. He was in custody of the cash belonging to the Mills and he had to maintain the rough cash book and prepare the debit vouchers on the authority of which money had to be drawn from the banks by P.W. 8, the managing agent. His duties also included disbursement of the wages to the labourers employed in the Mill every month. The labourers came ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »