Chennai Court October 1966 Judgments
In Re: A.R.M. Manickam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ256
ORDERRamamurti, J.1. This revision petition arises out of proceedings taken under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Central Act II of 1947 (as amended by Act 59 of 1952) hereinafter called the Act. The petitioner herein, one Manickam Chettiar, was the Superintendent of Central Excise at Tiruppur. On the ground that information was received by the Special Police Establishment, that the petitioner had received illegal gratification in the course of discharge of his official duties from the licencees of power-looms in connection with the grant of licences, in Somanur and surrounding areas, one Sri T. Raghavan, Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Madras applied to the District Magistrate (Judicial) Coimbatore for sanction for investigation of the matter under Section 5-A(c) of the Act.In that application for sanction, it was mentioned that one Mr. Lakshminarayanan, Superintendent of Police, and one Mr. J.A. Harries, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who could investigate the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Varadaraja Mudaliar Vs. Kannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ57
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in C.M.A. No. 76 of 1962. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 132 of 1961 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ranipet. That plaint was returned for presentation to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, and an appeal against that order to the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in C.M.A. No. 76 of 1962 failed.2. Shortriem Seniyanallur Village in Cheyyar Taluk was sold by one Punyakoti Mudaliar to his wife Thripurasundariammal. Subsequently, that Shortriem estate was notified and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. Before the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Thripurasundariammal's daughters, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, claimed the compensation money deposited in respect of that estate as belonging to them on the ground that the property was the Stridhana property of their mother. The present petitioner and his two other brother...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppa Goundar Vs. Muthuswami Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ397
K. S. Ramamurthi, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant are each entitled to a half share in a well situate in the plaintiff's land. The defendant has installed a pumpset and by using the same is irrigating his lands. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant is not-entitled to fix the pumpset on the ground that it is a common Well belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant. Consequent upon the declaration, the plaintiff also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from fixing the pumpset. The Courts below, following the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 73 of 1956 negatived the claim of the plaintiff and held that a co-owner of a well is entitled to enjoy his right to take water from the well for irrigating his land by installing a pumpset. It cannot be said that the co-owner's act in the installation of a pumpset and using the same for taking and drawing water and irrigating the lands is an unreaso...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Kannappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1966
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ212
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions have been heard together as they raise common points of law. The petitioner in each case is a dealer in purchase and sale of paddy in North Arcot District. By G.O.Ms. No. 766, Food and Agriculture, dated 9th March, 1964, which was duly notified in the Fort St. George Gazette, the State Government declared that the North Arcot District would be a notified area for the purposes of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act (XXIII of 1959). There is no question that in making this notification the procedure prescribed therefor by the Act was duly followed. By Section 38 (1), the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 was repealed but by Sub-section (2), the market committee established for the notified area under the repealed Act and bolding office immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act is deemed to be a market committee established under the new Act for that area and all its members are deemed to be members appointed by the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Natesa Chettiar Vs. the Madras State Electricity Board, by Its Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1966
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ69
M. Natesan, J.1. The defendant, a consumer of electricity under the Madras State Electricity Board, has filed this second appeal, challenging, inter alia, the claim for the recovery of the annual minimum amount guaranteed under an agreement for supply of electricity. The agreement was entered into on 2nd February, 1954, by the electricity department of the State of Madras and by and under the agreement the defendants had agreed to take supply of electric energy for a ten horse-power motor in his field bearing S. No. 726 in Naduhalli village, Salem District. The agreement provided that the defendant was liable to pay to the Government a minimum charge of rupees three hundred and fifty per annum for a period often years from 18th July, 1954, that is from the date on which the supply was available to the defendant at his end, whether electric energy was consumed or not. There was provision in the agreement for disconnecting supply after seven days notice for non-payment of bills within th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Kanniah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1525
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioners in all these cases were charged for offence under Section 5 read with Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act by the Sub Inspector of Police, Uttukottai. The Sub Magistrate, Ponneri, look cognizance of the cases against the petitioners on a complaint filed by the Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioners did not appear in court for a long time in spite of steps taken by the prosecution. The proceedings were staved under Section 249 Crl. P. C, with the sanction of the District Magistrate, Chingleput.Subsequently, the case was revived and taken on file for trial by the Sub Magistrate, Ponneri. The petitioners raised several objections before the Sub Magistrate, and mainly contended that the stay of proceedings amounted to an acquittal and that the revival of the case against the petitioners was illegal. The learned Sub-Magistrate negatived their contentions and held that stopping proceedings under Section 249 Crl. P. C. with the sanction ...
Tag this Judgment!S.H. Joseph Thabaraj Vs. the Prinicipal, Government Arts College
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ120
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2203 of 1966 is filed by a student in the first year of the B.A. class of the Government Arts College, Madras, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to the Principal of the Government Arts College calling upon him to produce the records pertaining to the grant of transfer certificate and conduct certificate of the petitioner and to quash the order, dated 16th August, 1966, confirming his earlier order, dated 8th August, 1966.2. Writ Petition No. 2204 of 1966, is filed by the same student for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Principal of the Government Arts College to take in the petitioner as the student in the first year B.A. class of the Government Articles College, Madras.3. The petitioner joined the first year B.A. Literature at Government Arts College, Madras, in June, 1966. He continued in the college till 9th August, 1966, when he was suspended by the Principal. As there is divergence between the parties regarding as to wha...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramalinga Reddy Vs. Official Assignee, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad399
ORDER(1) This is a very unfortunate case where Sri A. Ramalinga Reddy previously a zamindar had to be adjudicated insolvent. He was also granted an order of discharge but allowing some proceedings pending under Section 53 of the Presidency Town Insolvency Act to continue. Those proceedings were successful, and as a result the sales which were the subject matter of the proceedings were set aside and against the initial amount of Rs.6736 mentioned in the sale deeds the official Assignee was able top realise assume of Rupees 24,330. Further sums were also realised from one of the court action-purchasers by way of mesne profits. The Official Assignee concedes that in all those proceedings the insolvent was diligently assisting him and was mainly responsible for the success of the proceedings. As a result of the enlarged collections besides the initial dividend of 42 paise in the rupee there are funds now available with the Official Assignee enough to pay the creditors a sum of at least 38 ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumurthi Iyer and ors. Vs. M.K. Subramania Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ322; (1967)2MLJ64
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This revision proceeding raises a very interesting question whether, within the scheme of Madras Act XVIII of 1960, the legal representative of a tenant, who has come on record as such, in the executing Court, with regard to a decree for eviction obtained by the landlord, can put forward an independent ground in his favour of protection from eviction which is expressly embodied in the statute itself. The facts are as follows;-2. A decree for eviction originally obtained against one Sengamalammal (since deceased) is now being executed under the provisions of Section 18 of Madras Act XVIII of 1960. It is not in dispute that the decree is executable in that form and that it is executable against the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, who were residing with her up to the time of her death in the same building. For when we look into Section 2(8) of the Act, we find that the word 'tenant' is defined inter alia as including the 'legal representatives...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.K.N. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. M.N. Rayalu Ayyar Nagaswami Aiyar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1966
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ41
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. These three Civil Revision Petitions are by the same petitioner and arise out of orders made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in two plaints in unnumbered original suits and by the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, in one plaint wherein they have held that the Court-fee payable for a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, is payable under Section 41 of the Madras Court-fees Act, 1955 and that Section 87 (2) of that Act does not enable the petitioner to pay Court-fee under the Court-fees Act of 1870. There was a suit O.S. No. 96 of 1943, which was a money suit filed by the petitioner. It was decreed in 1944. In 1958 the petitioner attached certain properties and the claim petitions in respect of those properties filed under. Order 21, Rule 53 were allowed and thereupon the plaintiff sought to file three suits and aggrieved by the order directing him to pay Court-fee under Section 41 of the Madras Court-fees Act of 1955, he has filed these three r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›