Chennai Court August 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.
Rajamanickam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ90
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. On information the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 1 went to a place called Karaikuttai in the outskirts of Thamarapakkam village and caught three persons in the act of illicit distillation of arrack. We are concerned in this revision with accused 1. According to the Sub-Inspector he was engaged in attending to the oven kindling the fire. The Sub-Inspector found at that time various vessels used for distillation besides a boiling mud pot in which there were four gallons of spirit wash. He destroyed the spirit wash at the site but brought the other material objects to the Court. He could not take any mahazar witnesses for witnessing the seizure because according to him the village contained a maximum number of people addicted to drink and he thought that they would not be co-operative. Accused 1 was sentenced to a period of imprisonment and fine and in appeal the learned District Magistrate of North Arcot confirmed the sentence of imprisonment which was for a period...
Anantharaman and ors. Vs. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ44
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1.The question that arises for determination in this case is the scope of the principle of double-jeopardy outlined in Section 403(1) Cri.P.C. Article 20 of the Constitution of India, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act (Central.)2. The facts of the case are briefly the following: It was alleged that on 24.7.1959, at 9-30 p.m. inside a hotel called 'Premier Cate' in Madras City, seven persons committed certain acts which involved assault on one another. The people assembled in the hotel interfered. Then two policemen arrived at the scene and took all the seven persons to the police station. They were charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act. The Special Presidency Magistrate, Mobile court, George Town, found them all guilty on their own plea, and convicted them and sentenced them to pay fines. This conviction was on 25th July, 1959-the day after the date of the alleged offence. Subsequently, on 6.8.1959, Ramaswami (the first accus...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. the Madras Pencil Factory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ699
Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent is a pencil factory employing 114 persons. It would appear that the factory has attached to it a foundry and workshop in which certain spare parts required for the machinery employed in the manufacture of pencils are fabricated. In this factory and Workshop, 23 out of the 114 persons are employed.2. The appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, informed the respondent factory that as it was engaged in manufacture of general engineering products, it came within the purview of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, and called upon the respondent to implement the provident fund scheme. The respondent contended that the Act did not apply to it, and under the threat of penal action under the provisions of the Act, moved this Court in W. P. No. 249 of 1957. Balakrishna Aiyar J. held that the factory of the respond not was engaged in manufacture of pencils, an industry not included In the schedule to the Act, and that its fabrication of gen...
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Madras Pencil Factory
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ783Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The respondent is a pencil factory employing 114 persons. It would appear that the factory has attached to it a foundry and workshop in which certain spare parts required for the machinery employed in the manufacture of pencils are fabricated. In this factory and workshop, 23 out of the 114 persons are employed.2. The appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Madras, informed the respondent factory that as it was engaged in manufacture of general engineering products, it came within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, and called upon the respondent to implement the provident fund scheme. The respondent contended that the Act did not apply to it, and under the threat of penal action under the provisions of the Act, moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 249 of 1957. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., held that the factory of the respondent was engaged in manufacture of pencils, an industry not included in the schedule to the Act, and that its fab...
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. the Madras Pencil Factory ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ137
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The respondent is a pencil factory employing 114 persons. It would appear that the factory has attached to it a foundry and workshop in which certain spare parts required for the machinery employed in the manufacture of pencils are fabricated. In this foundry and workshop, 23 out of the 114 persons are employed.2. The appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, informed the respondent factory that as it was engaged in manufacture of general engineering products, it came within the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and called upon the respondent to implement the provident fund scheme. The respondent contended that the Act did not apply to it, and under the threat of penal action under the provisions of the Act, moved this Court in W.P. No. 249 of 1957. Balakrishna Ayyar, . M.L.J. 429 : I.L.R. (1959) Mad. 353, held that the factory of the respondent was engaged in manufacture of pencils, an industry not included in the Schedule to ...
Anantaraman and ors. Vs. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ225
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this case is the scope of the principle of double jeopardy outlined in Section 403(1), Criminal Procedure Code, Article 20 of the Constitution of India, and section a6 of the General Clauses Act (Central).2. The facts of the case are briefly the following:It was alleged that on 23th July, 1959, at 9-30 p.m., inside a hotel called 'Premier Cafe ' in Madras City, seven persons committed certain acts which involved assault on one another. The people assembled in the hotel interfered. Then two Policemen arrived at the scene and took all the seven persons to the Police Station. They were charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act. The Special Presidency Magistrate, Mobile Court, George Town, found them all guilty on their own plea, and convicted them and sentenced them to pay fines. This conviction was on 25th July, 1959, the day after the date of the alleged offence. Subsequently, on 6th August...
K.M. Krishna Gounder Vs. P.N. Narasingam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad309
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S No. 103 of 1957, on the file of the court of the Subordinate judge, Cuddalore, awarding the second plaintiff a decree for damages in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- against defendants 1and 2, on the grounds that the 2nd defendant drove the lorry of the first defendant negligently and ran over and killed the second plaintiff infant son. The first defendant is the appellant.(2) The first plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff and their son Dakshinamoorthi was run over and killed on 17-11-1955 by the lorry of the first defendant MDF.802 driven by the second defendant. The third defendant in the suit was the insurer who was impleaded as a party on the plea of the first defendant that the third defendant company was a necessary party.(3) The plaintiff alleged that the second defendant was employed to drive the lorry that he had no licence for driving a heavy transport vehicle, that the second defendant drove the lorry rashly and ne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›