Chennai Court October 1965 Judgments
Ellappa Naicker Vs. Arumuga Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad5
ORDER(1) This revision arises out of proceedings under the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act on the refusal of the Revenue Divisional Officer to set aside the order for eviction passed ex prate.(2) In the application for eviction, the father and son were added as respondents. The present revision petition has been preferred by the father who in fact is the tenant. The son had been made a party respondent. The first summonses on the case to the two respondents were taken by post and returned unserved. That was for the hearing on 19-2-1964. The case was adjourned to 5-3-1964. For this hearing summonses in the ordinary form had been issued. According to the return of service, the first respondent, the present petitioner, refused to receive the summons when tendered on 26-2-1964. It is stated in the return that the second respondent was not found. It is admitted that subsequently on the instructions of the clerk of the Revenue Divisional Officer the summonses were affixed on the ou...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Natarajan Alias Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1147
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding raises an interesting question of the circumstances under which rashness and negligence can be presumed, against the driver of a motor vehicle, with regard to the scope of Section 304-A, I.P.C. The facts are that the revision petitioner, Natarajan, alias Natesan, has been convicted by the courts below of the offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and the substance of this charge being that he drove lorry MDJ 3715 on the Tindivanam-Tiruvannamalai road near mile stone 34/4 at about 3 a.m. on 12.1.1962, in such a rash and negligent manner that he dashed it against a culvert, resulting in the capsising of the lorry, and the sudden fall to the ground of the proprietor, one Moosa Sahib, who was then sitting on the top of lorry. This Moosa Sahib received fatal injuries, due to the fact that the iron articles with which the lorry had been loaded fell upon him, and occasioned those injuries.2. The facts are within a very brief compass, and I have...
Tag this Judgment!Mohideen Bi and ors. Vs. Khatoon Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad435
P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.(1) This appeal arises out of an auction of the property, the subject matter of this appeal held on 12-9-1965. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 for the administration of the estate of one Abdul Hameed, who died on 1-7-1963. Pending the suit the plaintiffs and the mortgages of some of the properties belonging to the estate of Abdul Hameed applied to this court for the sale of the Maharaja Talkies, which is the Property involved in the present appeal. This was ordered on 26-4-1965 and Murray and Co., Madras, the auctioneers were appointed Commissioners for the purpose. This auction was subject to confirmation by court. Pursuant to the order of the court the auction was hold on 12-9-1965, and the property was sold to the 9th respondent for seven lakhs of rupees, he being the highest bidder. It may be mentioned here that pursuant to the terms of sale, the 9th respondent deposited Rs. 5000 in cash and passed a cheque for Rs. 1,70,000.(2) It is convenient to ext...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhulal Bros. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ687Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The Insurance Inspector called upon the appellant to contribute Rs. 377 and 213.70 towards the employees' contribution. The appellant opposed the applications on the ground that he was not running any factory and even assuming that it was a factory there were only nineteen persons working. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the concern of the appellant is a factory within the meaning of the Employees' State Insurance Act.2. The appellant is manufacturing and selling umbrellas at No. 2, Narayana Mudali Lane, Madras-1. Admittedly, there are eighteen workmen engaged in manufacturing umbrellas. There is one acoountant and two sales clerks working in the premises. At the time of the inspection by the Insurance Inspector, he found 25 persons working in the premises of the faotory. If, according to the contention of the appellant, the accountant and the sales ol...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Asari and anr. Vs. Adaikalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad425
ORDER(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Dist. Judge, Madurai, dismissing the petition of the appellants claiming a compensation of Rs. 3000 for the death of their son caused by the vehicle MDU 5390 driven by the second respondent, on the ground that the driver was acquitted of the charge under S. 304-A I.P.C. Evidently, the learned Judge has not bestowed his attention to the case law on the subject. It has been held in a number of decisions of this court that any decision of a criminal case cannot be relied on as one binding in a civil action. Equally the findings in a civil proceeding are not binding on a subsequent prosecution founded upon the same or similar allegations.(2) In Venkatapathi v. Balappa, I L R Mad 641: AIR 1933 Mad 429 , a Bench of this Court, consisting of Curgenven and Sundaram Chetty JJ, had to consider the question whether the decision rendered in a criminal proceeding is liable to be considered in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. There, Cu...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Oil Mills Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ1Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. Both these appeals arise under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The appellant herein is the Mahalakshmi Oil Mills, carrying on the business of manufacture of oils in the city of Madras. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, through its Regional Director, called upon the appellant to contribute employees' share of contribution as required under Section 40(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act at rates provided under Section 39 read with Sch. I of the Act for a period commencing from 6 September 1960 to 28 July 1962, approximately amounting to Rs. 1,138. As the appellant has not paid this amount, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation have filed the application, E.I.O.P. No. 44 of 1962, out of which C.M.A. No. 223 of 1963 arises. Equally the appellant filed E.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1962, out of which C.M.A. No. 222 of 1963 arises for a declaration that it is not liable to pay the contribution as claimed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation.2. When the m...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Shri Karumuthu Thyagaraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad378; 1966CriLJ1153; (1966)ILLJ705Mad
(1) This appeal arises out of an order passed on an application filed by the appellant under S. 75(2)(c) of the Employees State Insurance Act, to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 483-44 being the actual capitalised value of permanent disablement benefit of Rs. 420 and Rs. 63-44 being the temporary disablement benefit due to one Muhammad employed as a worker in the factory of the respondent. The said Muhammad who is employed in the factory of the respondent met with an accident and sustained an injury, while he was operating the star-handle wheel in the drilling machine, when his right hand slipped and his right index finger was caught in between the belt and the pulley. The accident was due to the fact that there was no safeguard provided by the factory owner (respondent) in the drilling machine, in spite of his statutory liability to do so, under S. 21(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, which requires that the pulley and the V belt should be securely fenced by safeguards of subst...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. P. Al. Alagappa Chettiar, Kottiyar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad229
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which raises a question of deductability from Indian assets of certain liabilities incurred by the deceased in Burma creditors resident in India. RM. P. AL. A. Alagappa Chettiar, who is the accountable person, submitted a return under section 53 of the Act valuing his fathers estate at Rs. 1,60,667. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madurai, determined the value of the movable and the immovable properties of the deceased in India, and as to his foreign assets he found that he left a wealth in Malacca of the value of Rs. 13,231, and an excess liability in Burma of Rs. 33,594. This liability related to borrowings of the deceased and utilisation thereof in Burma either for his business of money-lending or purchase of lands. The accountable person claimed to set off this liability against the Indian assets, which the Assistant Controller disallowed. He also disallowed an alternative claim to deduct a par...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. P. Al. A. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Controller of Estateduty, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1965
Reported in: [1966]60ITR289(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This is a reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, which raises a question of deductability from Indian assets of certain liabilities incurred by the deceased in Burma creditors resident in India. RM. P. AL. A. Alagappa Chettiar, who is the accountable person, submitted a return under section 53 of the Act valuing his fathers estate at Rs. 1,60,667. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madurai, determined the value of the movable and the immovable properties of the deceased in India, and as to his foreign assets he found that he left a wealth in Malacca of the value of Rs. 13,231, and an excess liability in Burma of Rs. 33,594. This liability related to borrowings of the deceased and utilisation thereof in Burma either for his business of money-lending or purchase of lands. The accountable person claimed to set off this liability against the Indian assets, which the Assistant Controller disallowed. He also disallowed an alternative claim to deduct a par...
Tag this Judgment!Chentilnathan Chettiar Vs. Peri V. Sp. Manickam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad426
ORDER(1) The plaintiff, whose suit for reimbursement of the amounts he had paid to the Government as penal assessment for the period of the defendant's possession of certain lands has been dismissed, is the petitioner in this revision. The learned District Munsif, who had no hesitation in holding that the defendant was bound in law to pay the penal assessment which had been paid by the plaintiff, found however, that the plaintiff could not be said to be interested in the payment. In the result, Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, on the basis of which action was laid, was held to have no application, and the suit dismissed. (2) The facts and circumstances which led to the plaintiff's claim may be briefly set out. The parties are Hindus and form two branches. In respect of the properties belonging to certain private family charities kept in common, an arrangement for management and enjoyment in turns was entered into on the 15th October 1955, by the plaintiff's father representing on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »