Chennai Court November 1966 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.
In Re: Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1644
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by one Natarajan against his conviction under Section 4(1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and Section 447 I.P.C. The allegation against him is that he had trespassed into the premises of the Harbour for transporting three bottles of whisky without a permit. He was arrested with the three bottles of whisky by a Sub-Inspector (P.W. 2) within the Harbour premises at 4-30 p.m. on 22-9-1966. P. W. 1 is another witness who was present besides others. The accused denied the offence. The learned Magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 4(1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under Section 447 I.P.C. to run concurrently with the other sentence. This revision petition has been perferred by the accused.2. The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petit...
Madras Pinjrapole Vs. their Workmen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ399Mad
Kailasam, J.1. This petition Is filed by the management, Madras Pinjrapole, Madras, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the presiding officer, labour court, Madras. In Industrial Dispute No. 103 of 1958 and to quash Its findings that the Madras Pinjrapole is an Industry by Its order dated 2 March 1965.2. The workmen of the Madras Pinjrapole raised an Industrial dispute against the management of the society and the dispute was referred by the Government of Madras by G.O. Ms. No. 36201, dated 22 September 1058, to the labour court, Madras. In the dispute the management raised a preliminary objection that the reference was bad, as the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, did not apply to the Madras Pinjrapole, which was engaged in rendering service to animals and not engaged in any manufacture' of goods or products. 1C also contended that the workmen of the Madras Pinjrapole were not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Di...
K. Shanmugham Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Shanmugham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad207
1. These two appeals arise out of the suit O. S. No. 13 of 1959, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tirunelveli, filed by the reversioners to the estate of a Hindu who died on 31-12-1926. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the properties specified in Sch. I and IV of the plaint with past and future mesne profits.(2) It is the common case of the parties that the properties detailed in Sch. I are properties endowed for Annadhana Chatram Charity, and the claim of the plaintiffs is that the Hukdarship of the Charity ahs on the opening of the reversion, devolved on them. The trial court has upheld the plaintiffs' claim in respect of Sch. I, and dismissed the suit in regard to Sch. IV properties. The aggrieved defendants have preferred A. S. No. 245 of 1961 in respect of Sch. I properties, and the plaintiffs have by A. S. 530 of 1961 appealed in regard to Sch. IV properties.(3) The following pedigrees give the relationship of the principal persons, who had dealt wi...
K. Shanmugham Pillai and ors. Vs. S. Shanmugham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ581
M. Natesan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the suit O.S. No. 13 of 1959, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tirunelveli, filed by the reversioners to the estate of a Hindu who died on 31st December, 1926. The plaintiffs claimed recovery of possession of the properties specified in Schedules I and IV of the plaint with past and future mesne profits.2. It is the common case of the parties that the properties detailed in Schedule I are properties endowed for Annadhana Chatram Charity, and the claim of the plaintiffs is that the hukdarship of the charity has, on the opening of the reversion devolved on them. The trial Court has upheld the plaintiffs' claim in respect of Schedule I, and dismissed the suit in regard to Schedule IV properties. The aggrieved defendants have preferred A.S. No. 245 of 1961 in respect of Schedule I properties, and the plaintiffs have by A.S. No. 530 of 1961 appealed in regard to Schedule IV properties.3. The following pedigrees give the relation...
Lakshmi-saraswathi Motor Transport Company Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ118Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The matter in dispute in this writ petition lies in a narrow compass. One Janardhanam Naidu was a driver under the petitioner-motor transport company. His service was terminated, after a domestic enquiry by the management. The charge against him stated that he was asked to take a parcel containing a certain document from the Tirupattur branch office of the company, to be delivered to the partner of the company at Vellore on 25 May 1963; but the driver failed to do so, and when questioned about the fact at Vellore, he replied that by oversight he had left the parcel at his house on the way, and that he would go back and bring the parcel. At that stage the partner at Vellore directed the driver to go himself and bring the document. But what the driver did was this; he sent the document through another employee of the company by a bus which arrived at Vellore on the day afterwards. The memorandum of charges proceeded to state that this conduct of the driver would show t...
P. Kannamba and ors. Vs. the Board of Revenue (C.T.) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC456(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The first petitioner, Smt. Kannamba, died in the course of the pendency of this writ petition, and petitioners 2 to 4 have been impleaded as her legal representatives. Their prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashing an order dated 14th February, 1964, passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of this writ petition are briefly the following :-Premises No. 10-A, Dandayuthapani Street, Madras-17, belonged formerly to one Ranganatham Chetty who sold it on 18th April, 1958, to one Ramaswami, and from Ramaswami the first petitioner purchased it on 11th May, 1961. This Ranganatham Chetty had some business as a dealer both in Madras City and at Tindivanam in South Arcot, and there were arrears of sales tax due by him, for an amount of Rs. 6,750 and odd, for the years 1954-55 to 1956-57. On the ground that Ranganatham Chetty did not have ...
Padmakan Singh Vs. Third Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad482; [1967]63ITR679(Mad)
ORDER(1) These two writ petitions are filed by the mortgagor and the mortgagee respectively, for the issue of a writ of mandamus to deliver to them the deed of simple mortgage executed by the mortgagor (Padmakan Singh) in favour of the mortgagee (the Coimbatore Vasanthara Bank Ltd.) and registered on 15-5-1963.(2) The circumstances that led to the filing of the writ petitions are these Smt. Padmakan Singh, the petitioner in W.P. 799 of 1963 is a permanent resident of Coimbatore. She owns the property No. 17/73 Oppanakara Street, Coimbatore. Her husband is carrying on business at Coimbatore and is assessed to income tax she applied to the Coimbatore Vasunthara Bank Ltd., for a loan of Rs. 50,000 on the mortgage of her house mentioned above. As she did not desire to attend the office of the Registering officer, she wrote a letter on 15-5-1963 requesting the officer, the Third Joint Sub-Registrar, Coimbatore, to go over to her residence, for the purpose of registering the document, on pay...
Jainalabdeen Rowther and ors. Vs. Pappathi Ammal Alias Mohamed Meeran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ135
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The plaintiffs, who have failed in the Courts below, are the appellants in this second appeal. The genealogical tree set out in the judgment of the lower appellate Court shows the relationship between the parties. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and the controversy in the second appeal relates to the A Schedule properties. Under a sale deed, Exhibit A-2 of the year 1911, the A Schedule properties were purchased by one Kose Vellayappa Rowther and one P.T.S. Mohamed Meera Rowther, (the latter being the predecessor-in-interest of the parties to this litigation. A partition appears to have taken place between this Vellayappa Rowther and Mahomed Meera Rowther in respect of the properties under Exhibit A-2, and Mohamed Meera Rowther became entitled to one half. Under Exhibit A-3 of the year 1946, a partition was effected between the heirs of Mohamed Meera Rowther who died, in 1938, and the heirs being his five sons, Appa Rowther, the eldest, who has been...
The State of Madras Represented by the Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ592
M. Natesan, J.1. These appeals arise out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai on a reference under Section 18 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition is of an extent of one acre and 90 cents of dry land in S.No. 140 Kodikulam village of Madurai Taluk for constructing quarters for the police staff at Othakadai. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 30 per cent. and the learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced it to Rs. 8p per cent. While the State has preferred Appeal Suit No/604 of 1961 against the award of additional compensation, the claimant has preferred Appeal Suit No. 74 of 1962 claiming compensation in the appeal at Rs. 150 per cent.2. The land under acquisition is situated at the junction point of Kodikulam, Narasingam and Arumbanur Village limits and adjacent to Anamalai Hills abuts on the road from Othakadai to Narasingam and other villages. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was p...
Syed Abdul Azeez Khan Vs. Flower (W.J.) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ796Mad
Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition by the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 61 of 1961, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sholinghur to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes in Execution Petition No. 4825 of 1961 in the suit. The simple question for decision in this case is whether the amounts standing to the credit of a railway employee in a provident fund is attachable in execution of a decree obtained against him because he has retired from service. Even where an order has been issued directing the payment of the amount to him, clearly it is not so attachable. Under Section 3 of the Indian Provident Funds Act, any amount standing to the credit of any sub-scriber or depositor shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor. There has been no nomination in this case and so there is no necessity to refer to Section 5 of the Act. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›