Chennai Court January 1961 Judgments
In Re: Nallayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1961
Reported in: 1961CriLJ581
Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this case the accused, one Nallayee, was committed to take her trial for an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. (attempt to commit murder), before the Court of Sessions, Salem Dn. and she was tried accordingly by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem. The typed copy of the charge framed by the Assistant Sessions Judge against her mentions the ingredients of tile offence; and, therefore, it should be considered as a proper charge.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has noted in the judgment that, when the charge framed against the accused was read over and explained to her in Tamil she pleaded guilty. The Judge then held that the plea was voluntary. He accepted the plea, found her guilty as charged on her own admission, convicted and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. The accused has filed this appeal from jail. She did not make appearance through an advocate within the time allowed to her. In her memo randum of appeal, she say...
Tag this Judgment!Pommalai Goundan and anr. Vs. Settia Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ6
Kailasam, J.1. The defendants have preferred this petition against the decree granted by the learned District Munsif, Sankaridrug.2. The two defendants are the sons of one Kuppichi Goundan. Kuppichi Goundan borrowed a sum of Rs. 240 for his family expenses on 10th March, 1952 and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. On 27th February, 1955, Kuppichi Goundan paid a sum of Rs. 45 and made an endorsement on the suit promissory note itself. It is admitted that before the date of this endorsement Kuppichi Goundan and defendants 1 and 2 became divided. Kuppichi Goundan was adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 24 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem. After the adjudication of the father, the executant of the promissory note, as insolvent, the plaintiff filed the suit against the present defendants, the sons of the insolvent. The trial Court found that the borrowing under Exhibit A-1 was for family expenses of the defendants and their father. The trial Court also fo...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Thirumalai Iyengar Vs. Official Liquidator, Srinivasa Mills Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad253; [1961]31CompCas561(Mad)
1. Srinivasa Mills, Ltd, Madurai, was a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on 7th January, 1946. A firm a partnership called Srinivasan and Co. was the managing agent of this Company. The terms of agreement between the managing agent and the company were reduced to writing and were attached to the articles of association of the company as Schedule A. The agreement provided that the managing agents should receive an allowance of Rs. 500 per month from the date of the registration of the company till the date of the commencement of the work by the company, and an allowance of Rs. 1,600 per month thereafter, after the Mill commenced work. At the inception the managing agent firm consisted only of three partners. Sri P. Section Thirumalai Iyengar subsequently became a partner of the managing agency firm under a written agreement with the firm. One of the terms of that agreement was that Thirumalai Iyengar should be the sole managing agent and should be the s...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Thirumalai Iyengar Vs. the Official Liquidator, Srinivasa Mills, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ216
Jagadisan, J.1. Srinivasa Mills, Ltd, Madurai, was a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on 7th January, 1946. A firm a partnership called Srinivasan and Co. was the managing agent of this Company. The terms of agreement between the managing agent and the company were reduced to writing and were attached to the articles of association of the company as Schedule A. The agreement provided that the managing agents should receive an allowance of Rs. 500 per month from the date of the registration of the company till the date of the commencement of the work by the company, and an allowance of Rs. 1,600 per month thereafter, after the Mill commenced work. At the inception the managing agent firm consisted only of three partners. Sri P. Section Thirumalai Iyengar subsequently became a partner of the managing agency firm under a written agreement with the firm. One of the terms of that agreement was that Thirumalai Iyengar should be the sole managing agent and sh...
Tag this Judgment!Bagyalakshmi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1961
Reported in: [1961]42ITR727(Mad)
SRINIVASAN, J. - For the assessment year 1952-53, a firm called Messrs. Bhagyalakshmi and Co., which were the managing agents of the Palani Andavar Mills Ltd., Udamalpet, applied for registration. Though the firm was originally constituted in 1934, it remained unregistered. For the assessment years 1939-40 and 1940-41, it had sought and obtained registration, but subsequently, there had been no application for renewal of registration. There had been changes in the constitution of the firm in 1941 and 1948. In 1950, a fresh partnership deed was drawn up. According to this document, of the several partners, one Guruswami Naidu was shown as the owner of a 7 annas 6 pies share and one Venkatasubba Naidu of a 2 annas 6 pies share. Each of the three other partners had a 2 annas share. On the basis of this partnership arrangement, the firm sought for and obtained registration for 1952-53. Renewal of registration was also granted by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1961
Reported in: AIR1961Mad417; 1961CriLJ497
1. The appellant in this case (Palaniappa alias Kutti Mudali) was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for the offence of murder of his father-in-law, one Marutha Mudali convicted upon the charge, and sentenced, for certain reasons furnished by the learned Judge, to undergo the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. In view of certain special features of the procedure adopted at the trial, we have actually heard the appellant, who was brought before us, and also heard Sri G. Gopalaswami (amicus curiae) for him. We might immediately state that, in the light of the order that we propose to make we are not proceeding into the merits of the case against the accused.2. What actually transpired at the trial is fully set forth in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, at the committal enquiry, the accused fully cross-examined the witnesses for prosecution. Not merely this, when he was examined by the commit...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chettiar Vs. Arumugha Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ4
Veeraswami, J.1. The appellant sued to recover a sum of Rs. 300 as the principal advanced and due on a mortgage executed on July 25, 1947 in his favour by the respondent and another sum of Rs. 100 alleged to be arrears of rent for the two years prior to the suit. The appellant's case was that it was an anomalous mortgage with possession and a personal covenant to repay after three years and that he had leased out the property to the respondent himself. The respondent admitted the lease except for the year 1948 but, according to him, it was a usufructuary mortgage under which the mortgagee was in possession for at least one year and the debt was liable to be scaled down under the provisions of Section 9-A of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. On that basis, he admitted that a sum of Rs. 290 would be due as principal and that a decree might be granted for the same. As regards arrears of rent, he denied liability on the ground that he got nothing from the lands during the relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Bethanna Nadar Vs. M. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ418
Kailasam, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 199 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvaiyaru. He filed a suit against the respondent-defendant for recovery of possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure and for past and future mesne profits. The trial Court granted a decree, and, as against that decree, the defendant (respondent herein) filed an appeal to the District Judge, West Thanjavur. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a compromise and the compromise deed was filed into Court. The Court passed a decree as follows:1. That the suit (O.S. No. 199 of 1958, District Munsif's Court, Tiruvaiyaru) do stand dismissed on condition that appellants (defendants 3, 4 and 5) and 2nd respondent (defendant 3) deposit into Court the arrears of rent till this date at 14 annas per month from the date of institution of plaint, i.e., 18th October, 1957, within two weeks from this date.2. That appellants and 2nd respondent do a...
Tag this Judgment!Moolchand Kevalchand Daga Vs. Kissindoss Girdhardoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad52
(1) This appeal originally came before a Division Bench of this court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent. The ruling of this court inRadhakrishnamurthy v. Ethirajulu Chetti and Co., ILR 1945 Mad 564 : (AIR 1945 Mad 184), directly supported the preliminary objection. But, after some argument, it was considered that decision required reconsideration. Hence, this reference to a Full Bench.(2) The appeal purports to be filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Ramaswami, J. In C. M. A. No. 531 of 1954. That appeal was against an order of the City Civil Court, dismissing an application filed by the respondent under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit (O. S. No. 538 of 1954) on the file of the City Civil Court. Section 39(1) inter alia provider for an appeal form an order staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement (cl. (V)).The question is whether an appe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ratnamala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad31
(1) These are related appeals from the judgment of the learned IIIrd Presidency Magistrate, Madras in C. C. No. 6640 of 1959 on his file. The learned magistrate convicted one B. S. Babu (accused 1) and his sister Ratnamala (accused 3) under S. 3 (1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (Central Act 104 of 1956), and sentenced each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week.(2) Certain questions of considerable importance, both with regard to the implementation of certain provisions of this Act, and with regard to the entire technique adopted by the authorities in enforcing this piece oflegislation, have arisen in these appeals. I propose to deal with them at some length, for they are certainly questions of importance to the citizen as well as the State. But, befoer doing so, I shall briefly set out the facts which the prostitution has claimed to have established by the ev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »