Chennai Court July 1966 Judgments
Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Kotumal Bhirumal Pihlajani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad263; 1967CriLJ1007
(1) In view of the ultimate order which I propose to pass in this case, namely, for reference to an appropriately constituted Bench, I shall refer to the facts of this revision case as well as the arguments advanced, therein briefly.(2) A compliant was laid by the Collector of Customs, Madras against ten persons for offences under Section 120-B I.P.C. (conspiracy) read with Section 135 of the Customs Act 1962 (Central) Act 52 of 1962 (concerning smuggling of prohibited goods including possession knowing or having reason to believe them to be smuggled and therefore liable to confiscation), under Section 23(1)(A) and 23(B) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and under rule 131-B of the Defence of India Rules (illegal possession of gold). The complaint arose out of an incident which involved transport from Bombay to Madras of 750 bars of gold each weighing ten tolas, whose value would exceed Rs. seven lacks. It was alleged that out of those, 700 bars were brought in a car from Bombay ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnaraju Reddiar and ors. Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad352
Veeraswami, J.(1) In a batch of writ petitions, which we have heard, the constitutionality of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961 is assailed on certain grounds notwithstanding the fact that it was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India by the Seventeenth Amendment. Further, the scope and effect of some of the provisions of the Act as applicable to particular facts in each case have to be decided. Though for convenience sake, the batch of petitions was heard together on the validity of the Act, on the second question of interpretation we propose to deal with these petitions separately in the light of the acts in each of them. We shall at the moment confine ourselves to W. P. 1543 of 1964 and 416 and 1473 of 1965.The first of them is for mandamus directing the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Vellore and the State of Madras, to forbear from taking proceedings against the petitioner and the lands set out in the schedule attached to his aff...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.S.M. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1232
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition by accused i to 3 in P.R.C. 9 of 1965 on the file of the Special District Magistrate, Coimbatore, to revise the order of the said Magistrate rejecting their applications for grant of copies of statements of witnesses examined before the District Revenue Officer, Salem.2. Petitioners are being proceeded against for charges of rioting, criminal trespass, mischief, attempt to murder etc., alleged to have been committed by them during the Anti-Hindi agitation on 10.2-1965 at Komarapalayam. There was an enquiry by the District Revenue Officer in respect of the Anti-Hindi agitation and rioting on 10.2.1965, and statements of witnesses were recorded by him. The learned Public Prosecutor raised some doubt, whether the said enquiry was under P. S. O. 145, corresponding to the old P. s. o. 167. But it is clear from the prior order of the Special District Magistrate, which came up in revision before me, that the contention of the Special Public Prosecutor was that th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the District Collector Vs. N.C. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ131
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The issue involved in this reference by Veeraswami, J., can be simply formulated as the question whether a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required for a suit against the State Government, or an authority of that Government, for a mandatory injunction. The learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.) has briefly referred to the apparent conflict of the case-law on this point, and expressed his own view that he was unable to agree with the interpretation which Curgenven, J., placed on the words of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code in Krishnaswami Sastri v. Syed Ahmed (1931) 34 L.W. 993. In our view, the issue is practically concluded by a decision of the Judicial Committee, to which we shall later refer approbated and explained in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sawai Singhai v. Union of India : [1966]1SCR988 , apparently this decision was not before Veeraswami, J., at the time that he made this reference.2. A very brief reference to the f...
Tag this Judgment!S. Antony Vs. G.S. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1527
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellant S. Antony- retired from the army as a captain. In the course of his giving evidence in a defamation case against him and others he was cross-examined by P. W. 4, Sri V. N. Narasinga Rao, advocate for accused in this case, and two defamatory questions were put to him, namely, that he ran from the operation field in 1943 and came to India on foot and that as President of the Ex-Serviceman Club, Vellore, he misappropriated the radio, blanket and cot belonging to the club. The learned District Magistrate rightly found that those suggestions made to the appellant were defamatory and that the accused was not entitled to either exception (1) or exception (9) to Section 499 I.P.C. claimed by him. The first suggestion really means that the appellant was deserter. There can be no doubt that the two suggestions are clearly defamatory.2. Learned advocate for the accused made a feeble attempt to show that the defamatory statements were true. But I see no reason to differ f...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Lakshmi Coffee Hotel, Kumbakonam Vs. Workmen of Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad252; (1967)ILLJ258Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. (1) This appeal, which is sought to be instituted by the management of a coffee hotel at Kumbakonam involves what is really an issue of fact, viz, whether the free food and tiffin that has been supplied to the workers, by this establishment, throughout, can be taken into the computation of 'wages' within the meaning of S. 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, XIV of 1947, Section 2(rr) defines 'wages' as 'all remunerations capable of being expressed in terms of money. Which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment......'As the learned Judge (Kailasam J.) has pointed out, the only issue is whether the free food and tiffin that has been supplied by the employer consistently to his employees in this hotel, would properly from part of 'wages' as defined. It appears to us that this is primarily a question of fact, for everything would depend on the circumstances. There may be a situat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1528
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. The 20 petitioners herein were charged by the police before the learned Special Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli for offences under Sections 147, 148, 454, 454 read with Sections 149, 427, 435 and 435 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The main allegation against them was as follows : On 10-2-1965 at about 11 a.m. at Jawahar Bazar, Karur Town, the petitioners were members of an unlawful assembly, that in prosecution of the common objects of such assembly, viz, in resisting the execution of law by defying the order passed under Section 144 Crl. P. C. in breaking open Kalyani Ready made Stores belonging to Govindarujulu Pillai and causing mischief and mischief by fire, committed the offence of rioting, that at that time accused 10 was armed with a crowbar and accused 7 and 21 with iron rods and that thereby accused 1 to 6,8. 9, 11 to 20 and 22 to 26 committed an offence punishable under Section 147 I. P C. and that accused 7, 10 and 21 committed an offence puni...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekara Bharathi Weaving Mills and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1966
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT62(Mad)
Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 734 of 1964 is filed by Messrs. Chandrasekara Bharathi Weaving Mills, Rajapalayam for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, in his order of detention dated 14-5-64 issued under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules and to quash the order of detention dated 14-5-64 in Demand DD2. No. 12888-1/61 dated 12-5-64. Writ Petition No. 735 of 1964 is by the same partnership for the issue of a writ of Prohibition directing the Assistant Collector to forbear from enforcing the order of detention dated 14-5-64. Writ Petition No. 3180 of 1965 is by Messrs. Janakiram Mills Limited, Rajapalayam, for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the Collector of Central Excise Madras, C. No. IV/16/49/65-B-2 dated 18-6-1965 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Sivakasi, dated 14-5-1964 in C. No. VIa/10/1/62 (MDU) dated 5-6-64...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subrahmanyam Chetty and ors. Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Ceili ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad422
(1) These petitions pertain to problems relating to S. 22 or S. 9(2)(b) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act 1961 Sec 22 covers transitions which took place between 6-4-1960 and 2-10-1962. It appears that the State Government issued administrative instructions to authorised officer and others concerned as to how matters arising under that section should be classified for purposes of disposal. It is argued that notices issued by the authorised officers under S. 22 keeping in view of bring influenced by the said instructions of the Government should be quashed. It is obvious that the jurisdiction under Sec. 22 is quasi-judicial and the officers entrusted with the jurisdiction should be left free to decide matters arising under S. 22.No administrative instructions in the matter can property be issued either classifying transactions which will fall within the purview of S. 22 or giving any other indication as to how matters should be disposed of under S. 22. The in...
Tag this Judgment!Appachan and ors. Vs. R. Raju Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad441; 1967CriLJ1646
ORDER(1) This revision petition under Ss.435 and 439 Crl P.C. has been preferred by the three persons who were accused in P.R.C. 20 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Coonoor. The police filed a charge sheet against them for offences under Ss. 392, 394, 397 and 392 read with S. 114 I.P.C. It will be noted that S. 397 I.P.C. is an offence triable exclusively by the court of session. That was why the case was taken on file as preliminary register case, to be enquired into under the provisions of Ch. XVIII of the Code.(2) Briefly, the case of the prosecution was that at the instance of one Menon, P.W. 1 Raju Gowder, owner of a big coffee and tea estate, employed the third accused as a writer in that estate. For unsatisfactory work and absence without leave, his services were dispensed with in or about July 1965. Accused 1 and 2 are uncles of the third accused. On 6-10-1965 at about 8.30 a.m. the third accused came to the bungalow of P.W. 1 Accused 1 and 2 demanded the settlement o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »