Chennai Court August 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 31 results (0.019 seconds)In Re: Nijam Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ250
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by me in Crl. M. P. No. 887 of 1959, refusing bail to the petitioners. The office has put up a note pointing out that such an application does not lie. This matter has been posted for orders on the note put up by the office. The question is whether such an application lies.2. This is presented under Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution. Under Article 134(1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceedings of a High Court. The question is whether an order passed in the above criminal miscellaneous petition is a final order. The explanation to Article 132 states -that the expression 'final order' includes an order deciding an issue which if decided in favour of the appellant would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. An order on a bail application, even if it Is in favour of the petitioners, would certa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Adimoola Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ492; (1960)1MLJ84
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. I agree with learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that, under peculiar circumstances of these two cases, the revision petitioner (Accused i in the Court below) ought not to have been convicted either under Section 379, Indian, Penal Code, or under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. We may take the facts as established that the revision petitioner was the lessee from the municipality for the purpose of collecting the rents due in respect of temporary stalls in the Municipal Market, that the complainant in the lower Court did not pay rent for a temporary projection, and, that this revision petitioner removed certain planks in the projection on the night of 14th May, 1958, in order to compel the complainant to pay the rent, or to enforce his rights. When the complainant wanted the return of the planks, the revision petitioner is alleged to have told him, according to the evidence, that the planks would be returned only when the rent was paid.2. In these circ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappa Naicker Vs. A.P.C. Umapathy Nayagar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ466
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom eviction was ordered by the Revenue Court under Madras Act XXV of 1955. An interesting point is argued in these proceedings that the petitioner in the lower Court was not the 'landlord' as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act, for the reason that the petitioner in the lower Court is only the power-of-attorney agent of a legatee under a registered will executed by the previous and admitted landlord, since deceased.2. Now, 'landlord' is defined as 'a person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such, holding or part'. The question is whether the definition would include any person, who, by devolution of law or by any valid disposition of property, obtains an interest in the holding and in the subsisting tenancy. It is true that the definition is cryptic, and somewhat unhelpful. But I see no ground for assuming that when at least applied to a person, who, by devolution of law or by a disposition in his favour, ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nijam Mohideen Alias Rajan Mohamed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ541
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by me in Crl. M.P. No. 887 of 1959 refusing bail to the petitioners. The office has put up a note pointing out that such an application does not lie. This matter has been posted for orders on the note put up by the office. The question is whether such an application lies.2. This is presented under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. Under Article 134(1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceedings of a High Court. The question is whether an order passed in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is a final order. The Explanation to Article 132 states that the expression 'final order' includes an order deciding an issue which if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. An order on a bail application, even if it is in favour of the petitioners, would certain...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras vs. Md. Ismail Sahib an ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad64; 1960CriLJ242
(1) These petitions have been filed either to direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to try the various calendar cases pending before him or to transfer them to the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. In these cases after the issue of summons to the accused a preliminary objection was taken by the accused to the trial of the cases by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that the Chief Presidency Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the cases. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions on behalf of the complainant in paragraph 4 it is stated thus:"An objection was raised by the accused in C.C. No. 3546 of 1958 that the Presidency Magistrate's court has no jurisdiction and the place where the factory is situated is within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee. On verifying the records at the Collector's office I find that this factory in which the offence was committed is also situated within the jurisdiction of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nallathangal Vs. Nainan Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad179; 1960CriLJ490
ORDER(1) The revision petitioner in this case is a wife whose proceeding under S. 488(1) of the Crl. P. C. was dismissed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Dindigul upon a finding of fact that the petitioner had been actually divorced from her husband by virtue of a Caste Panchayat and that there was hence no subsisting marriage.(2) It is not in dispute before me that though Hindu Law does not recognise a divorce between husband and wife, marriage being regarded as an indissoluble sacrament, nevertheless, the custom in certain communities may be widely different, permitting a valid divorce by means of a caste Panchayat or similar tribunal.(3) With respect to the effect of recent legislation upon this matter, this is, the Hindu Marriage Act XXV of 1955, the question seems to have come up in this court, and the decision is briefly reported. In Parvathi Ammal, In re, 1957 Mad WN Cri. (N. R. C.) 4, Ramaswami J. held that the customary rights of divorce were saved by S. 7 of of Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Salem-shevapet Sri Venkateswara Bank, Ltd. Vs. Krishnan (K.K.) and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ797Mad; (1960)IIMLJ165
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. One Krishnan who is the first respondent in this petition was a clerk in the Salem-Shevapet Sri Venkateswara Bank, Ltd., who are the petitioners in this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari. The facts which have given rise to petition are briefly these: While Krishnan was working as clerk in the petitioner bank he sent a letter on 8 August 1955 to the secretary of the bank requesting that he may be granted leave for that day and the next. Leave was not granted and on 11 August 1955 the secretary of the bank directed the clerk to offer an explanation as to why he had absented himself from duty on 8 August 1955, without previously obtaining leave. Besides this there were several charges made against him and this was sent in a formal communication dated 22 August 1955. In the meantime the clerk was kept under suspension. An explanation was furnished by the employee which the secretary held to be unsatisfactory, and it is common ground that without ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishna Iyer Vs. Health Officer, Pudukottai Municipality
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ86
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. Upon the facts of evidence in this case, I see no grounds to interference in revision with the conviction of this petitioner under Rule 49(2) of the rules framed under Central Act XXXVII of 1954 read with Section 16(1) of the Act. The argument before me is that, assuming the facts as established that the revision petitioner did store or keep chilly-paste in an untinned container (there is no specific evidence about the substance of which the container was made, but very probably it was brass or copper), merely keeping such an ingredient of food in an untinned vessel by a hotel proprietor would not attract the language of Rule 49(2), and that these facts would not come within the mischief of that rule.2. Rule 49(2) runs as follows:No person shall use for manufacturing, preparing or storing any food or ingredeient of food intended for sale, any utensil or container which is imperfectly enamelled or imperfectly tinned....3. In the case before us we must consider...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Periaswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ448
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. The revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 4(1)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and sentenced to payment of a fine. The facts are almost identical with those in the case decided by Somasundaram, J., recently (Crl. R.P. No. 1022 of 1958) Since reported as Rathinam, In re : (1960)2MLJ449 and that is clear authority for the view that, where the appearances referred to in the decision are alone present, without further definite symptoms, no presumption arises that the offender had consumed prohibited alcohol. In such circumstances, it is duty of the prosecution to prove that prohibited alcohol had been consumed, and this proposition has been enunciated upon the authority of the Supreme Court decision in B.K. Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955) S.C.J. 73 : (1955) 1 M.L.J. 32 : (1955) A.W.R. 32, and following the decision of the Madras High Court in Palani Goundan v. The State : (1956)2MLJ273 , In the present matter, the signs found, according to the...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. M. Haji Md. Ismail Sahib, P ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ521
Ramaswami, J.1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras, filed six charge-sheets against Sri Haji Mohammad Ismail Sahib, in regard to two tanneries Sri V.S. Raghavan, in regard to Revathi Studios, Sri M.H.M. Munas, in regard to Royal Studios, Sri Noor Kazi, in regard to Amco Studios and Sri K.S. Praksh Rao and Sri K. Venkatarama Ayyar, in regard to Prakash Studios, under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The complaints were taken on file by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, and numbered as C.C. Nos. 2396, 2397, 3545, 3546, 3547 and 3548 of 1958.2. In regard to the location of the factories and establishments and the address of the registered office, if any, in the City of Madras, and the addresses of the Offices of the principal employers in these cases, the following information is forthcoming:In C.C. No. 2396 of 1958, the factory concerned is Messrs. Haji Md. Ismail Saheb Tannery. It is situated in Ellamman Koil Street, Tiruvotriyur, Madras-19. The registered offic...
Tag this Judgment!