Chennai Court March 1964 Judgments
The Proprietors of Associated Publishers, Madras (P) Ltd. Vs. C. theob ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad207
(1) In Desikachari v. Associated Publishers, a Bench of this court consisting of Ramachandra Iyer Officiating C. J., and Ramakrishnan J. dealt with the cases of three Journalists, Messrs. P. S. Desikachari, C. Theobald and A. Krishnamurthi, who were employed by the respondent, the proprietors of the "Madras Mail", and who were retired upon attaining ages considered to be ages of superannuation. The Labour Court, before when the petitions instituted claims for benefits, held that the termination of the services of these journalists was the consequence of voluntary retirement in each case, or of attaining the age of superannuating, and that, in any event, there was no case of retrenchment, attracting the claim to benefits under the relevant statutory provisions. This Bench held that the petitioners were retrenched, and were entitled to retrenchment compensation under S. 2(oo) and S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Court was quashed, and the petition was released to the disposed of afres...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.J. Manickavasagam Vs. Chandramathi Dayamani Manickavasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad468
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal is preferred by one P. S. J. Manickavasagam (hereinafter called the husband) against the decree for judicial separation passed in O. M. S. 3 of 1960 on a petition filed by his wife Chandramathi Dayamani Manickavasagam (hereinafter called the wife) for judicial separation, maintenance and custody of the children. The judgment itself is a common judgment in a series of proceedings, viz., O. M. S. 9 of 1959 filed by the husband for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, O. P. 221 of 1959 also filed by the husband under the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890 for declaring him the guardian of his minor children Jayachandran and Premalatha and for the custody of these children and the said O. M. S. 3 of 1960 filed by the wife for judicial separation.(2) The parties are Indian Christians. They belong to a respectable middle class family. The husband is a professor of mathematics, and is a member of the Madras Educational service. He marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Atmakur Venkatasubbiah Chetty and anr. Vs. Thirupurasundari Ammal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad185
Ramamurti, J. (1) This appeal comes before us for final disposal after the submission of the findings by the learned city Civil Judge in pursuance of an order of this court dated 1-1-1963, calling for a finding. The questions that arise for consideration lie in a narrow compass. The brief facts of the case are as follows.(2) One A. C. Kannappa executed a settlement deed, Ex. B. 5, dated 25-2-1934, under which he gave a life estate to his son, Rajakannappa in an extent of land, with certain buildings, now bearing door No. 5 Nowroji Road, Chetput, the land measuring about 14 grounds 2070 sq. ft. The vested remainder was given to minor Rajasekharan, the settler's grandson. Rajakannappa's wife is the first defendant, and his son, minor Rajasekharan aforesaid is the second defendant. The third defendant is Rajakannappa's mother-in-law, the mother of the first defendant. Rajakannappa executed two mortgages, Ex. A. 1 dated 28-2-1946 for Rs. 10,000 and Ex. A. 2 dated 23-1-1947 for Rs. 5000 in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Pethu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad9
ORDER(1) The defendant in O. S. No. 127 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Turaiyur is the petitioner herein. He files this revision petition against the order of the learned District Munsif, Turaiyur in I. A. No. 84 of 1963 in the aforesaid suit, an application filed under O. VIII R. 9 C. P. C. seeking to file an additional written statement which prayer was refused by the learned District Munsif.(2) The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the suit property and had perfected title by adverse possess in against the co-sharers. He had leased the said property to the defendant, who had put-up a hut on the leased portion. The lease period had terminated and the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession. Originally the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had no right to sue without impleading the other co-sharers. Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition to file an additional written statement in which he claimed to ha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oomayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1964
Reported in: 1966CriLJ482
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This case has come up before me on a reference by the District Magistrate under Section 341, Cr. P.C. on the ground that the accused was a deaf mute who did not understand a part of the proceedings, A reference to the records shows that there was a qualified deaf and dumb interpreter who successfully interpreted the crucial points of the case to the accused who also cross-examined the witnesses on the said crucial points. The charge against the accused was one of illicit transport of arrack. When P. W. 1, the head constable was cross-examined, the accused elicited from him : 'It is not true to say that the accused was washing clothes at the river bed and that he did not carry contraband'. Similarly with regard to P, W. 2, the accused elicited in cross examination.It is not true to say that the accused did not carry contraband and that the case is foisted. It is not true to say that the accused was washing clothes in he river and that he was called and brought.In...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Palanisami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad98; 1965CriLJ309
(1) This appeal is filed by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Madras, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C. A. 36 of 1962. The accused, a grocery merchant in Tuticorin, was convicted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, under S. 7, 16(1)(a) read with S. 7(v) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 7(v) states that no person shall himself or by any person oh his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell or distribute any adulterated food. Section 16(1)(a) sates that if any person, whether by himself or by any person in his behalf, sells or distributes, any articles of food in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, he shall be punished.(2) The facts in case lie within a narrow compass, P. W. 1, the Sanitary Inspector of the Tuticorin Municipality, who is also the food inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the shop of the accused on 30-9-1961 and purchased 3/4 lb of compounde...
Tag this Judgment!Voora Rangamma Vs. Voora Venkatarajalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad428
(1) The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for enhanced maintenance against her step-son. Plaintiff is the third wife of Voora Gurumurthi and the defendant is the son of the said Gurumurthi by his second wife. Gurumurthi died at Madras on 19-12-1930 leaving behind him hi son, the defendant and the plaintiff his widow and joint family properties consisting of a house No. 11 Reddiraman St. G. T. Madras and a shop in Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement deed Ex. A. 1, dated 6-1-1931. The settlement deed provided that the plaintiff in full satisfaction of her right to maintenance, residence etc., over the joint family properties, would receive for the natural life Rs. 20 per mensem every month from February 1931 and receive two sarees of the value of Rs. 150 per annum. She was also given the option to reside in the family house or to receive a sum of Rs. 5 per mensem. The settlement further pr...
Tag this Judgment!Stella Pakkiam and ors. Vs. K.P.P. Rajiah Ratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad225
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) These appeals are the outcome of a suit instituted by the wife, for herself and on behalf of the children born of her wedlock, against her husband for maintenance. The suit was partially decreed, the lower court awarding Rs. 100 per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 35 per month for each one for the two children who lived with her; no amount was awarded in respect of the maintenance of the other two children who were residing with their father. The wife has filed the former of the two appeals complaining of the inadequacy of the amount awarded; the husband has filed the latter appeal contesting the right of the wife and his children who live separate from him to ask for maintenance.(2) The parties, who belong to a well-to-do family in Nazarath in Tirunelveli Dt. are Indian Christians belonging to the Protestant persuasion. They were married on 9-9-1942. They have four issues, three daughters and a son. One of the daughters and the son are now with t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Mokkasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ48
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. This revision case wherein the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti, and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai was admitted by my learned brother Anantanarayanan, J., on the question of law whether the cutting of a bone to a slight extent would be a grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case show that the injured P.W. 1 when examined by P.W. 5. the doctor, had an incised gaping wound bleeding 3' ' bone deep and cutting W of bone on the medial side of left eye brow. This is the injury with which we are now concerned and the question for consideration is whether, in law, this amounts to a grievous injury Grievous injury has been defined in Section 320 Indian Penal Code as 'fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth' Fracture of a bone therefore is a grievous injury within the meaning of the aforesaid sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR256(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered by -SRINIVASAN J. - Though the assessees in these three cases are different, certain common questions arise. We shall however set out the facts relevant to each reference separately for purposes of clarity :T.C. No. 157 of 1961 : The assessee in this case claimed development rebate and extra depreciation in respect of an expenditure of Rs. 93,215. The Income-tax Officer found that part of the expenditure was incurred only for the expansion of existing machinery and was not for the installation of new machinery. He accordingly disallowed development rebate (Rs. 23,304) and extra depreciation (Rs. 1,554) relevant to such expansion. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner inspected the mills in question. He came to the conclusion that the modifications effect to the old machinery were of a capital nature, but nevertheless could not be considered as new plant and machinery in respect of which alone development rebate and extra depreciation co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »