Chennai Court January 1962 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. Thulasingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: 1964CriLJ241
Sadasivam, J.1. Appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of Thulaslngam in respect of a charge Under Section 304-A I. p, c. by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, In C. C. No. SI of 1961 on his file. The only ground on which the respondent has been acquitted by the lower Court is that there is no evidence to prove that he drove the lorry. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the fact that the respondent went and gave the first information report Ex. P-4, admitting that he drove the lorry at the time of the occurrence and the evidence of P. W. 8, (Head Constable), who received the report and registered it as crime No. 7 of 1961 in this case.But as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the deci Soft of Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (S) : 1957CriLJ550 the first information report is not a sub staijitive piece of evidence and it can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker Under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict Under Sectio...
Dr. Arthur Nathanial and anr. Vs. Dr. R.P. Nathanial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ420
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from the finding of the District Munsif of Vellore in O.S. No. 297 of 1959 holding that the suit had been properly valued under Section 25(d) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1955. The defendant is the petitioner. The respondent instituted a suit for a declaration of his right to the hospital and dispensary run under the name and style of ' The Popular Pharmacy and Nursing Home ' and for an injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his possession of the hospital and practice therein or using the medicines and setting up a rival practice to his detriment. The petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. It is admitted that the premises of the pharmacy which is situate in No. 29, Filter Bed Road, Vellore Town-does not belong to either of the parties. The right claimed in the plaint is therefore an intangible one relating to the pharmacy and nursing home, i.e., the ...
S.T. Sinniah Chettiar Vs. S.T. Karian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ335
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1629 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. The facts of the case which have led to this Second Appeal are briefly the following.2. The plaintiff, Sinniah Chettiar, and the defendant, Karian Chettiar, are brothers. They became divided in status and executed a partition deed on 14th November, 1938, which has been marked as Exhibit A-2 in the case. Under the partition deed, they seem to have divided all their properties except the property described in the C Schedule thereto, which, it is recited, will be kept in common. This C Schedule property is Sri Dhanalakshmi Rice Mills, which the brothers had installed in certain premises which they had taken on lease. The value of this property was given as Rs. 300. The milling business was continued in that mill. In 1942, the Madras Foodgrains Control Order was promulgated, and it became necessary to obtain a licence for conducting the mill. The licence was...
The Panchayat Board of Senbakkam by Its President Sri A. Masilamani Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ385
ORDER1. The facts which have given rise to this writ appeal are set out succinctly in the Judgment of Veeraswami, J. in W.P. No. 978 of 1960 against which this appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent therein. The petitioner in the Writ Petition was elected as a member of the Panchayat Board of Senbakkam on 5th May, 1958. It is not in dispute that prior to his election he had been convicted for offences under Sections 348 and 330 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and that at the time of the election five years had not elapsed from the date of the expiry of the period of the sentence. This would, therefore, have been a disqualification under Section 16(1) of the Madras Village Panchayat Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) for his election as a member. Apparently nobody took the objection before his election. On a petition by the President of the Panchayat Board, filed in February, 1960, under Section 19(1) of the Act and numbered as O....
Rathinasamy Konar Vs. Nagammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad133
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant in a suit for possession, involves the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act (Central Act XXX of 1956) to the admitted and established facts. The matter has a certain degree of interest. It appears to me that the result of the application would have to be somewhat different from that arrived at by both the Courts below, and that the appellant would hence be entitled to succeed to a partial extent.2. The original owner of the suit properties was one Singara Konar who died in 1931. He left two widows behind him, namely, the first plaintiff (whose daughter is the second plaintiff), and one Poornathachi. The widows were unable to live together amicably, and, in consequence of a certain mediation, Poornathachi purported to execute a release deed in favour of the first plaintiff and her daughter (second plaintiff), under the original of Ex. a.i dated 29-4-1931. The effective part of this instrument has been set forth b...
M.V. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Regional Providen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad134; (1963)ILLJ52Mad
ORDERJagadisan, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, or order under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras dated 2-3-1957 in exercise of his powers and jurisdiction under the Employees Provident Funds Act, XIX of 1952.2. The relevant facts are these : The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a business concern called 'The Modern Agencies'. He is running a factory registered under the Factories Act. In this factory he is manufacturing various items and products such as wooden toys, pedalling cars, perambulators, tricycles, scooters, merry-go-rounds garden swing cradles etc. The Provident Fund Inspector, Madras inspected the factory on 28-2-1957 and found more than 50 workers employed in the factory. The records of the factory disclosed that on 31-10-1952 there were actually 81 employees. In March 1957, the petitioner obtained aid from the State Government under the sche...
S.V. Narayanaswami and anr. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by Ins ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ175
Jagadisan, J.1. These two Writ Petitions raise questions relating to the proper election of Chairman of Panchayat Union Council for which the answer depends upon the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Madras Acts XXXV of 1958 and XVII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Acts. They can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment, but it must be mentioned that the points that arise for determination are not identically the same in both the petitions.2. The facts giving rise to W.P. No. 1206 of 1961 are as follows. The Government of Madras issued directions by G.O. Ms. No. 1447, L.A., dated 5th October, 1960, that in the area of the revenue village of Thamaraikulam there should be three Panchayats : (i) Thamaraikulam; (ii) Lakshmipuram and (iii) not named. On 22nd October, 1960, the Government made a modification and directed that there should be bifurcation of the Lakshmipuram Panchayat into two Panchayats, one named Lakshmipuram Panchayat, and the other named Saruthip...
In Re: P.N. Venkatarama Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1962
Reported in: 1962CriLJ764
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition to revise the order of the learned Sub-Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, negativing the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner that he could not be prosecuted for the offence Under Section 379 IPC read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, in view of the prior case for the same offence having ended in his favour. The petitioner was prosecuted in C.C. No. 1185 of i960 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Periakulam, for the same offence, and he was convicted by the trial court, but he was acquitted by the appellate court on the ground that the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act was a bar to the prosecution in that case. Subsequently, the prosecution filed the present case after complying with the provisions of S. go of the Indian Electricity Act.2. The first point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act cannot apply to an offence punishable Under Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›