Chennai Court February 1966 Judgments
The Motor Owners Mutual Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. the Madras State Elect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1966
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ385
T. Venkatadri, J.1. The only question that arises for my consideration in this revision petition is whether the Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation in a suit filed by the Madras Electricity Board for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 165 from all or any of the defendants for the damage caused to the plaintiff's electric lamp post in Anaikatti street in Thiruvannamalai Town on 21st July, 1958 by a motor lorry, driven by the first defendant. The second defendant is the owner and the third defendant is said to have purchased the lorry from the second defendant. The fourth defendant is an Insurance Company (petitioner herein) with whom the second defendant had insured the vehicle. The learned District Munsif recorded the fourth respondent as an ad hoc party under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the decree against the insured person might be executable against the insurer after judgment. The appeal preferred by the fourth defendant failed. It is against thi...
Tag this Judgment!Qhamarunnissa Begum Vs. Fathima Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad367
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the estate of one Haji Mohamed Asamathulla Badsha Sahib who died on 4-1-1955 at Madras leaving several heirs and considerable movable and immovable properties at Madras and in Arcot, North Arcot District. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the deceased by his second wife, Habeebunnissa Begum, whom he has divorced in 1948. The first defendant is another daughter by this divorced wife and defendants 2 and 3 are sons of the deceased by her. The fourth defendant in the suit is a daughter of the deceased by his first wife who died somewhere in 1938 and defendants 9 to 11 are the daughters of the fourth defendant and minors. The fifth defendant is the third wife of the deceased and the sixth defendant is the minor daughter by the third wife. Defendants 7 and 8 are the 4th and fifth wives of the deceased and they have no issues. The dispute in the appeal relates to (1) interests shown as owned by the 6th defendant Gullzar in Gulzar ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Seshadrinatha Sarma (S.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ238Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. In this revision proceeding, the petitioner (Seshadrinatha Sarma) has been convicted, upon two counts, under Rules 3 and 4 (1) of the Madras Factories Rules read with Section 92 of the Madras Factories Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 on each count. Three grounds of considerable interest have been urged before me by learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, with regard to the propriety of the conviction. The first ground is that the prosecution is barred by virtue of Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. The second ground is that, on the facts, this is not a factory at all, because though ten or more workers were admittedly working in the establishment during the relevant period, no manufacturing process was being carried on within the premises. It is strenuously contended that that has been the case of the revision petitioner throughout, that he even attempted to file an appeal from the decision of the Inspector or relevant executive authority to t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : S. Seshadrintha Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1455
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan. J.1. In this revision proceeding, the petitioner (Seshadrinatha Sarma) has been convicted, upon two counts, under Rule 3 and Rule 4(1) of the Madras Factories Rules read with Section 92 of the Madras Factories Act, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 on each count. Three grounds of considerable interest have been urged before me by learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, with regard to the propriety of the conviction. The first ground is that the prosecution is barred by virtue of Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. The second ground is that, on the facts, this is not a 'factory' at all, because, though ten or more workers were admittedly working in the establishment during the relevant period, no 'manufacturing process' was being carried on within the premises. It is strenuously contended1 that that has been the case of the revision petitioner throughout, that he even attempted to file an appeal from the decision of the Inspector or relevant executive ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Devaraja Gramani Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad295
(1) This revision is directed against the order of the appellate court allowing an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord who is the petitioner before me instituted a proceeding in ejectment under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, impleading therein the present respondent who claims to be a tenant under the said Act and one Thulakanathammal as defendants. The respondent was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit as a person unauthorisedly seeking to put up a superstructure on the property. Thulukanathammal was shown as the first defendant and impleaded as a tenant of the land under the plaintiff. The plaint proceeded on the allegations that Thulukanathammal never put up superstructure thereon and than in January 1961, the present respondent came on the land as having been inducted thereon by her and started putting up a superstructure.(2) In the enquiry that followed the app...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Devaraja Gramani Vs. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ340
M. Natesan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the appellate Court allowing an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord who is the petitioner before me instituted a proceeding in ejectment under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, impleading therein the present respondent who claims to be a tenant under the said Act and one Thulukanathammal as defendants. The respondent was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit as a person unauthorisedly seeking to put up a superstructure on the property. Thulukanathammal was shown as the first defendant and impleaded as a tenant of the land Under the plaintiff. The plaint proceeded on the allegations that Thulukanathammal never put up any superstructure thereon and that in January, 1961, the present respondent came on the land as having been inducted thereon by her and started putting up a superstructure.2. In the enquiry tha...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manasuba and Co. (Private) Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. C.V. Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1966
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas701(Mad)
ORDERKailasam, J. 1. This application is taken out by the official liquidator, Madras High Court, the official liquidator of Manasuba and Company (Private) Limited under Sections 455 and 478 of the Companies Act, 1956, for directing the public examination of the three directors, namely, C.V. Raman, T.V. Narayanaswami Aiyer and T.K. Balasubramaniam, and the secretary of the company, R.S. Rangarajan.2. The company, Manasuba and Company (Private) Limited, was incorporated on May 13, 1957, under the Companies Act, 1956, as a private limited company. It ceased to do business as from May 21, 1961. It was ordered to be wound up, A preliminary report under Section 455 of the Companies Act was filed on December 17, 1962, by the official liquidator and was ordered by this court on January 25, 1963. The official liquidator filed a further report under Section 455(2) stating that fraud had been committed in the conduct of the business of the company and that a public examination of the persons men...
Tag this Judgment!S. Govinda Iyer Vs. Municipal Council, Villupuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad290
(1) This writ petition comes up before us, upon a reference by Srinivasan J, on a question of considerable interest, with regard to the juxtaposition and the relative application of Ss. 249, 250 and 321(11) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). The matter is partly covered by two authorities, to which our attention has been drawn, but it does appear that the particular ground of distinction upon which the learned Judge sought to place the proceedings before a Division Bench, has not been dealt with in either of these authorities.(2) A very few facts are essential for an elucidation of the position. We shall be quite brief, since the learned Judge has already referred to the merits at some length, in his judgment of reference. The writ petitioner is the proprietor of a printing press, wherein he had an electrically-operated treadle. On 17-4-1964, he applied under Sec. 250 of the Act for installing an additional treadle with 2 H. P. electric motor. There was corresponde...
Tag this Judgment!S. Govinda Iyer Vs. the Municipal Council, Represented by Its Executiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ164
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. This writ proceeding comes up before us, upon a reference by Srinivasan, J., on a question of considerable interests, with regard to the juxtaposition and the relative application of Sections 249, 250 and 321(11) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). The matter is partly covered by two authorities, to which our attention has been drawn, but it does appear that the particular ground of distinction upon which the learned Judge sought to place the proceeding before a Division Bench, has not been dealt with in either of these authorities.2. A very few facts are essential for an elucidation of the position. We shall be quite brief, since the learned Judge has already referred to the merits at some length, in his judgment of reference. The writ petitioner is the proprietor of a printing press, wherein he has an electrically-operated treadle. On 17th April, 1964, he applied under Section 250 of the Act for installing an additional treadle with a 2...
Tag this Judgment!Pattammal Vs. M. Munuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad392; 1966CriLJ1275
ORDER(1) This revision case has been filed by the wife against the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore, refusing maintenance to her under Sec. 488 Crl. P. C. on the ground that she had been living in adultery. The principal evidence of adultery consisted of some admissions of the petitioner to D.W. 2, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellore, to the effect that she had sexual intimacy with one Palni, a servant employed in the restaurant of her husband, had eloped with him and had lived with him as man and wife in several places.These admissions were made in the course of an enquiry conducted by the said Sub Inspector of police on a complaint preferred to the Karaikudi police by the petitioner's husband's brother that the said Palni had stolen away some jewels from the house of the petitioner's husband in Vellore. The jewels were actually recovered from Palni. The police of Karaikudi, asked the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellore (D.W.2.) to examine the petitioner a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »