Chennai Court February 1966 Judgments
Thangaswami Pillai Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad374; 1966CriLJ1151
ORDER(1) The facts in controversy in this petition are briefly the following. A girl by name Rajamma was alleged to have been kidnapped by the accused Ponnuswami Nadar in S. C. No. 73 of 1961 on the file of the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and then raped her. He was prosecuted before the Assistant Sessions Judge for kidnapping the minor from lawful guardianship (S. 366 I.P.C.) and rape (Sec. 376 I.P.C.) but he was acquitted of the latter charge and convicted and sentenced to R. I. For six months under the former charge. The accused is alleged to have removed from the person of the girl a gold chain weighing about three sovereigns. In the course of the investigation by the police, this chain was recovered from P.W. 4, a pawn broker of Tuticorin, with whom the accused had pledged it for about Rs. 150. The trial court ordered the return of the jewel to the father of the girl, on the finding that the property really belonged to the girl's parents and that the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Commissioner, Nagarcoil Vs. M. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad479; 1966CriLJ1461
ORDER(1) There are two grounds on which this revision proceeding by the Nagarcoil municipality represented by its Commissioner, seeking to assail the propriety of an acquittal of the respondent under Section 175 read with S. 313 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, will have to fail. The first is the ground of the maintainability of a revision from acquittal of this character and it is governed by the juxtaposition of the respective spheres of operation of S. 439(5) Crl.P.C. and S. 417(3) Cr.P.C. Under Section 417(3) Cr.P.C., if an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted on complaint, if he desires to further prosecute his remedy in respect of such an order of acquittal of the accused, will have to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal. Under Section 439(5) Crl.P.C., where a remedy by way of an appeal from acquittal is provided for, and no such appeal is brought, the party who could have appealed is barred from prosecuting a remedy by way of revision.(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantha Krishnaswami Vs. M.S. Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad241; 1967CriLJ899
ORDER(1) Vasanatha krishnaswami has filed a compliant of bigamy against her husband, Krishnaswami, under Section 494, I.P.C. The compliant alleged that she was married validly under the Hindu law sometimes in 1960. Thereafter her husband married a girl called Virija, on 11th November 1964 at Avalur in North Arcot district. The compliant was filed in the court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, who took the case on files. The complainant's first witness, P.W. I. was examined. He deposed that he was present at the second marriage at Avalur where it was performed under the Hindu rites. At that state a petition was filed by the husband, the accused, stating that the compliant should have been instituted in the court having jurisdiction over Avalur, and not in the City of Madras, and therefore the Presidency Magistrate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. S. 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code was relied upon. The learned Presidency Magistrate upheld this technical o...
Tag this Judgment!Soodamania Pillai (Minor) Through Paternal Aunt and Guardian Shenbagat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ308
M. Natesan, J.1. This Second Appeal by the defendant, who has lost in both the Courts below, raises an interesting question of law. The suit purports to be one for possession on redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The property agricultural land originally belonged to one Shenbagathammal who had othied it to three brothers for a sum of Rs. 450 under a registered deed dated 9th October, 1936, Exhibit A-l, being the registration copy of the deed. The mortgagees had entered into possession pursuant to the othi in their favour. By a registered sale deed dated 7th July, 1937. Shenbagathammal sold the property to one Muthukumaraswami Pillai for a consideration of Rs. 650, a sum of Rs. 450 being reserved with the vendee for discharge and redemption of the othi. The plaintiff is the first wife's son of the vendee. He had on the first wife's death taken a second wife by name Chellathammal. Sometime after the purchase and before redemption, the vendee appears to have become mentally unbalanced...
Tag this Judgment!P.B.K. Raja Chidambaram Vs. R.P. Rathna Sarma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad182
ORDER(1) This petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee for the election of a Director to the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank Limited dated 4-11-1965 and for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.(2) The Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank consists of 19 Directors. Out of the 19 Directors, 17 had already been elected. One Director has to be elected from the Lalguidi Co-operative Supervising Union and another from individuals holding fixed deposits. The business year of the Bank begins from 1st January and ends by the 31st December. The term of office of elected members in three years; but it is provided that one third number of members elected from the Board at the first election shall retire at the end of the first year after such election and another one third number of members to retire in the second year. The members that are to reti...
Tag this Judgment!V. K. Kannan Vs. Collector of North Arcot and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1966
Reported in: [1966]61ITR293(Mad)
This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Collector of North Arcot calling for the recordsn in Ref. No. D. 9566/63 on his file and for quashing his order dated February 2, 1963, confirming the order of the Sub-Collector dated December 22, 1961, in R.C.A. No.29526/60.The facts relevant to this petition may be stated. Under a claim to recover a sum of Rs. 1,99,832.96 as income-tax arrears, the Tahsildar of Gudiyatham acting on the orders of the District Collector of North Arcot brought the properties belonging to the petitioner for sale in revenue auction on June 11, 1959, in two lots. Lot No.2 after a fresh notice for re-sale was notified for sale on July 21, 1960, and was sold on that date and purchased by the second respondent for Rs. 15,000. The petitioner filed an application on August 19, 1960, for setting aside the sale. The Sub-Collector confirmed the sale on December 22, 1961. Though a copy of the order confirming the sale was requested, the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appadurai (S.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ249Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. On the facts of this case, I do not see how it could be contended that the revision petitioner was improperly convicted for the technical offence of the failure to send a return in form 22, punishable under Rule 100(2) of the Madras Factories Rules, 1950, read with Section 92 of the Factories Act. But I certainly agree that the offence is highly technical, and that the petitioner was under a bona fide misapprehension that he need not send the return.2. In brief, the facts render it clear that the petitioner was throughout contending that this was not a ' factory ' at all, as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 63 of 1948. There has teen some difference of judicial opinion on the question whether, it power is employed not directly for a process of manufacture, but indirectly for pumping up water which has to be utilized for a part of the process, the establishment would or would not for a factory under Section 2(m)(i). Apparently, the petitioner was co...
Tag this Judgment!The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Board of Revenue Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ92
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. On the 29th of October, 1957, a document, which purports to be a memorandum of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, came into existence as between the Jawahar Mills Ltd., Salem, and the Indian Overseas Bank Limited. The document was presented for registration on 30th October, 1957, and it bore stamps under Article 6 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. The question referred to us for decision is, whether this is an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds, pawn or pledge, falling under Article 6(2)(a) of Schedule I, or is a mortgage deed falling under Article 40(b) of the same Schedule, of the Stamp Act.2. Before proceeding to the details of the recitals in this document, which has two Schedules of properties attached, namely, Schedule ' A' and Schedule ' B '; it may be useful to briefly refer to certain relevant provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899, the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act. Section 2(17) of the Stamp Act is an inclusive definitio...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sadasiva Reddiar Vs. R. Duraiswamy Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ366
ORDERP.s. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is for grant of a writ, direction or order, as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case, particularly a writ in the nature of quo warranto to the first respondent calling upon him to show under what legal authority he is acting as President of the Valaieduppu Multi-purpose Co-operative Credit Society.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated. The petitioner was one of the Executive Committee members elected under Section 27 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Under the bye-laws, he was also elected President of the Committee for the management of the society. There were some misunderstandings between the members of the Executive Committee, and on 9th June, 1965, a few members of the Committee expressed dissatisfaction of the management of the society by the President. The Extension Officer (Co-operation) Thathiengarpet conducted an enquiry into the affairs of the society. He issued notice to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ukaippaligal Munnai (Firm) and ors. Vs. V. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ90
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. These two appeals arise out of execution proceedings in O.S. No. 10 of 1959. The appellants herein filed applications to set aside the sale in respect of two properties. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 94 of 1962 is the petitioner in E.A. No. 635 of 1961 and she is a third party interested in lot 2, and the appellants in. C.M.A. No. 95 of 1962 are the petitioners in E.A. No. 637 of 1961. They are defendants 1, 3 and 4 who are interested in lot 1. They alleged in the applications that the sale was vitiated by fraud and material irregularities in the conduct of the sale,, on the ground that the description of the properties were not properly given in the sale proclamation, that the sale proclamation itself was not properly published and. that the properties sold in the public auction were grossly undervalued with a deliberate intention to mislead the bidders. The Court below held that there was no-fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of the sale. Hence the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›