Chennai Court July 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.
S.V. Viswanathan Vs. G.P. Rangaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ560
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. My learned brother has dealt with the facts and the Issues involved in the appeal So fully, that I am thereby enabled to dispense with a recapitulation of the background of fact, and the parts of the statute law that are applicable to the case. I am in entire agreement with his conclusions, and the reasoning on which they are based; but, in view of the interest of the main issue, I have been tempted to set forth a brief analysis.2. Perhaps the best way to deal with the main issue, will be to state the argument of Sri Kumaramangalam for the respondents, in its clearest and strongest form. The argument is, tersely, to the effect that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed into the question of the impugned vote in this case; hence, it is argued, the learned Judge (Srinivasan, J.) had no option but to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, by the issue of the writ. Sri Kumaramangalam points out that, even under the Representation of the People Ac...
In Re: M.P. Govindaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ401
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The facts in this case are briefly the following. The petitioner Govindaraj is doing business in Karaikal. He was found proceeding in a lorry MDF. 2838 near Kancheepuram and in the lorry there were 125 tins each containing four gallons of French Polish. French Polish is an item included in the Madras Denatured Spirit Methyl Alcohol and Varnish (French Polish) Rules, 1959, series of rules framed by the Madras Government under the powers conferred under the Madras Prohibition Act. Rule 6(ii) of the Rules provides thatno person may possess or transport within any area in the State denatured spirit...methyl in excess of the limits prescribed in the Sub-rule (i) above except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license for possession, or a permit for transport, as the case may be. 2. The petitioner along with the driver was prosecuted before the Sub-Magistrate; Kancheepuram, for contravention! of the above rule read with Rule 11 of the said R...
State of Madras Vs. Mohammad Sirajudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad122
(1) The State filed a batch of appeals against different respondents but certified copies of a common judgment were produced only in one of the appeals and their production in each of the rest of the appeals in the batch was, by an order of this court, dispensed with. On the basis of the certified copies of the decrees filed in the appeals in which the production of the printed common judgment was dispensed with, those appeals are found to be out of time.(2) Learned Government Pleader argues that the endorsement on the printed copies of the common judgment produced in on of the appeals should be made use of in calculating time for filing appeals under S. 12(2) of the Limitation Act. We do not think that learned Government Pleader is right in his contention, Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is explicit and clearly prescribes that in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree ...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Special Tahsildar, for L.A. Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ380
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The State filed a batch of appeals against different respondents but certified copies of a common judgment were produced only in one of the appeals and their production in each of the rest of the appeals in the batch was, by an order of this Court, dispensed with. On the basis of the certified copies of the decrees filed in the appeals in which the production of the printed common judgment was dispensed with, those appeals are found to be out of time.2. Learned Government Pleader argues that the endorsements on the printed copies of the common judgment produced in one of the appeals should be made use of in calculating time for filing appeals Under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. We do not think that learned Government Pleader is right in his contention. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act is explicit and clearly prescribes that in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obta...
The Corporation of Madras, Represented by Its Commissioner and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ440
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. There is only a simple ground of the interpretation of a statute, involved in this writ appeal though, indisputably, it possesses a measure of interest; the only authority that has any bearing, direct or indirect, on the concerned issue is an English decision. We may take it that the writ appellant, which is the Corporation of Madras represented by its Commissioner and Revenue Officer, desires to contend that the advertisement or hoarding displayed at the outer wall of the main building of a railway station, is not entitled to the exemption enacted in Section 129-A, Sub-clause (e) of the City Municipal Corporation Act (IV of 1919). We may immediately set forth that Sub-clause which is in the following terms:Section 129-A--Provided further that no such tax shall be levied on any advertisement which is not a sky-sign and which-.(e) is exhibited within any railway station, or upon any wall or other property of a railway company except any portion of the surface ...
Mohammed Habibullah and anr. Vs. Seethammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad123
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. (1) We are fully satisfied, after a careful consideration of the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, that this Letters Patent Appeal ought not to be admitted. The facts are clear. The appeal is sought to be filed by the owner of a motor vehicle and by the Insurance company, with regard to a case of a fatal motor accident, which gave rise to a justifiable claim for compensation. Not merely the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act. which went into the question, but also the learned Judge(Venkatadri J.) who heard the civil miscellaneous appeal, both came to the unambiguous conclusion on the merits that this was a case of a motor accident that ended fatally, under such circumstances as to justify, and fully justify, the claim for compensation.(2) The main argument pressed before us was that the claimant was the married sister of the victim, a bachelor who died without leaving a child, parents or any other heir. Our attenti...
Mohammed Habibullah and anr. Vs. K. Seethammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ378
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. We are fully satisfied, after a careful consideration of the arguments urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that this Letters Patent Appeal ought not to be admitted. The facts are clear. The appeal is sought to be filed by the owner of a motor vehicle and by the Insurance Company, with regard to a case of a fatal motor accident, which gave rise to a justifiable claim for compensation. Not merely the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, which went into the question, but also the learned Judge (Venkatadri, J.,) who heard the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, both came to the unambiguous conclusion on the merits that this was a case of a motor accident that ended fatally, under such circumstances as to justify, and fully justify, the claim for compensation.2. The main argument pressed before us was that the claimant was the married sister of the victim, a bachelor who died without leaving a child, parents or any other heir. Our attenti...
L.C.T.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. M.R. Krishnamurthy Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad1
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
L.Ct.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. M.R. Krishnamurthy Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ1
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form the issue involves a conflict of the case-law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan : (1936)70MLJ306 , a Division Bench of Beasley, C.J., and Stodart, J., held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. Baba Sah v. V M Purushothama Sah : (1924)47MLJ932 , Spencer, O.C.J. and Srinivasa Ayyangar, J., held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›