Chennai Court November 1961 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vellachamy Ambalam Vs. Paramasamy Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ142
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These proceedings are intimately related to each other, in the sense that the Second Appeal is instituted by a party to a civil suit for an injunction, while the Revision proceedings are instituted by the landholder who was a party to proceedings for restoration of possession by an alleged cultivating tenant, in the Revenue Court, in respect of the same piece of property. As is well-known., Madras Act XXV of 1955 specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters within the scope of the Act, except to a specified extent, under Section 6 of the Act. Section 6-A makes provision for the transfer of certain suits to the Revenue Court by the civil Court itself, where the civil Court finds that the defendant is a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits of the Act. The respective ambits of jurisdiction of the civil and Revenue Courts in this matter have been the subject of decisions of this Court, and may well lead, in certain cases, to some confusion a...
Raju and anr. Vs. Advocate General H.C. Buildings, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad320
(1) The pettioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Art. 226 of the constitution to quash teorder of the learned Advocate General of Madras dated 6-1-1961 in sanction Appln No. 11 of 1960, preferred before him for the necessary consent for the institution of a suit under S. 92 C.P.C.(2) The petitioners are residents in the village of Sirunaickanpetti Dngual tauk, Mathurai Dt. and they are Roman Catholic Christians by religion. The bulk of the population of the village of Sirunaickenpatti consists of Roman Catholic Christians. There is a Church in the village, St. Anthony Church and there is also another church, the Church of S. Thomas situated on the top f ahillock near the village. The catholic Christians of the village appear to have raised funds for levying contribations and subscriptions from all the Catholic and purchased statues, pictures, ornaments, and carriage for carrying corpses to the burial ground and other articles necessary and ...
Pappammal Annachatram Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad284; [1962(5)FLR116]; (1962)IILLJ107Mad
(1) This petition for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate direction raises an interesting question as to whether an Anna Chatram constituting a public charitable endowment the object of which is to feed poor desantris and afford free boarding and lodging to poor students by utilising the income from the endowed properties, is an industry within the definition of the term under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 14-10-1957, the trustees of the Chatram framed against the third respondent certain charges relating to alleged acts of misfeasance and misconduct on his part and called upon him to submit his explanation within 24 hours. The third respondent submitted his explanation the next day denying the charges. After considering the explanation, the trustee passed an order dated 18th October 1957, terminating the services of the third respondent with immediate effect and directed that he be paid, in lieu of notice, one month's pay. The third respondent's appeal to a...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Dhanapal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ701; (1962)2MLJ217
Sadasivam, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 7 and 16 and Rule 44 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the learned District Magistrate of South Arcot.2. The respondent is a petty maligai merchant at Devanampatnam, Cuddalore Town. When he was questioned under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he admitted the sale of turmeric to P.W. 1, but he pleaded that he purchased the turmetric from one Lakshmanan Chetty, a wholesale merchant whom he examined as D.W. 1 in the case. The report of the analyst marked as Exhibit P-4 clearly shows that the sample of the turmeric sold by the respondent contained about 34 times the amount of lead permitted under the rules. The learned District Magistrate has observed that for the first time in this case he heard that lead is used in the processing of turmeric and that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused had knowledge of the extra lead in the turmeric....
R. Sampath Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad485; [1962(5)FLR262]; (1963)ILLJ46Mad
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the, Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order, writ or direction, directing the State of. Madras to recognise the petitioner as an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, as and from 1-12-1947.(2) The history of the service of the petitioner as set out by him in his affidavit is as follows. The petitioner entered service On 23-8--1944, as-acting second division clerk in the office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board which was in existence prior to the enactment of Madras Act XIX of 1951. Between the date 1-12-1947 to 30-9-1949 for a period of one year, two mouths and 17 days, he was officiating as an Upper Division Clerk having been promoted from the lower division cadre to the upper division cadre.Under rule 30 of the Madras Ministerial Services rules a lower division clerk promoted to the higher cadre prior to 3-9-1951 need not pass any test ...
R. Sampath Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretary to the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ140
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order, writ or direction, directing the State of Madras to recognise the petitioner as an Upper Division Clerk, in the Office of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, as and from 1st December, 1947. ,2. The history of the service of the petitioner as set out by him in his affidavit is as follows. The petitioner entered service on 23rd August, 1944 as acting Second Division Clerk in the Office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board which was in existence prior to the enactment of Madras Act XIX of 1951. Between the dates 1st December, 1947 to 30th September, 1949, for a period of 1 year, 2 months and 17 days he was officiating as an Upper Division Clerk having been promoted from the lower division cadre to the upper division cadre. Under Rule 30 of the Madras Ministerial Services Rules a Lower Division Clerk promoted to the higher...
Sri Parimala Ranganathaswami Devasthanam by Executive Officer, P.S. Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ203
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The appeal is preferred by the Executive Officer of the Parimala Ranganathaswami Devasthanam of Tiruvilandur against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O.S. No. 38 of 1956 by which the suit brought by the temple for recovery of Rs. 11,462-2-2 was dismissed without costs.2. The respondent Muthuswami Iyer took on lease 287 acres and 10 cents of nanja land and 108 acres and 21 cents of punja land situated in Kalukkanimutham village and belonging to the plaintiff-Devasthanam for five faslis from fasli 1360. According to the terms of the registered lease deed executed by the respondent he agreed to measure an annual quantity of 4,750 kalams of paddy, deliver 375 bundles of straw and pay cash Rs. 600 as rent. There were many other terms in the lease deed as regards allowance claimed by the lessee which it is not necessary for us to refer to at this stage. One of the principal terms of the lease was that the lessee should pay rent uncondition...
C. Rajamani Vs. M. Chitraputhran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ323
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Rajamani has been convicted under Section 116(2) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to simple imprisonment for one month in C.C. No. 2405 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Uthamapalayam and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the District Magistrate on appeal. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the evidence in this case would not justify his conviction under Section 116(3) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. But on going through the records I find sufficient materials to sustain the conviction of the petitioner under Section 116(3) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. Petitioner was Temporary President, Panchayat Board, Kohilapuram. The charge against him is that he failed to hand over charge to his successor. It is not even the petitioner's case that he handed over the properties and records of the Panchayat Board to his successor. Therefore the lower Court...
Sri Thiagarajaswami Devastanam Tirukkayalai Vs. Kamalappa thevar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad439
(1) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff Sri Thiagarajaswami Devastanam by its hereditary trustee Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidhi against the judgment of the District Judge of East Tanjore dismissing its suit for a claim for Rs. 6749-10-9 against the defendants and for a charge against certain items of properties.(2) The first defendant and one Subbiah Thevar now deceased, took on lease 51 acres 78 cents of lands belonging to the plaintiff Devastanams on 28-12-1944. The lease was for a period of five years and the properties specified in the schedule to the plaint belonged to Subbiah Thevar and were given as security for the due payment of the rent and for fulfilment of the other conditions of the lease. The Extent of security was limited to one year's lease that is Rs. 210O. Defendants 2 and 3 are Subbiah Thevar's son's widows. Defendant 4 is Subbiah Thevar's son's adopted son. Defendant 5 is the wife of the first defendant and defendants 6 and 7 are th...
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Subbarathnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad487
(1) The facts of this second appeal are within a very short compass, and the question is whether, in reversing the judgment and decree of the first court, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in the first appeal has not committed a palpable error of law and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion altogether. The facts are as follows:(2) The suit was by one Lakshmi Ammal. the widow of a certain Lakshminarayana Aiyar, for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to a piece of property, measuring 38 cents in S. No. 130/3 in Ochalam village, Arkonam taluk. The following facts are not in dispute. The property originally belonged to one. Subbarama Aiyar, D.W. 1, and, from him, the plaintiff (Lakshmi Ammal) purchased this property under Ex. B. 1 for Rs. So on 10-12-1939. The plaintiff claims that, after the purchase, there was mutation of registry in her name, and that she was enjoying the suit property by leasing the property to others. The defendant is the legatee of the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »