Chennai Court September 1966 Judgments
Rathinam and ors. Vs. State, S.i. of Police, Tiruvadanai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad409; 1967CriLJ1530
ORDER(1) The petition has been filed on the ground that the complaint as given in the F. I. R. and the materials as gathered by the police in the course of the investigation do not disclose an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. but, if established may amount only to an offence under S. 363 I.P.C. The argument is that the facts, if provide, would amount only to an offence under Section 363 I.P.C. which is tribal by a court of Session, Presidency Magistrate of Magistrate of the First Class, and that the proceeding now before the Sub Magistrate, Tiruvadanai, for committal of the accused to take their trial before the court of Session for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is misconceived. According to learned counsel, it is not a case which is exclusively tribal by a Court of Session but it is one which is tribal by a First Class Magistrate as well and therefore the Sub Magistrate ought not to hear the proceeding, and the proceeding should be transferred to a First Class Magistrate having ...
Tag this Judgment!Thatha Gurunadham Chetti Vs. Thatha Navaneethamma (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad429
(1) This second appeal involves the question, of the applicability of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, to the facts of the case. One Guruviah Chetti died about the year 1932, prior to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act. 1937 leaving surviving his widow Thatha Muniamma and four sons, Venkatachalam Chetti, Gurunathan Chetti, Narasimhalu Chetti and Bangaru Chetti. The four sons partitioned their family properties in 1946 under the deed of partition Ex. A.2 dated 11-12-1946. The family properties were divided into five Schedules. A to E. Schedules B to E were taken, one by each son and the A Schedule which contained four items was allotted to the widow of the deceased, their mother, for her maintenance. Under the terms of the allotment, the widow had no power of alienations of any kind and had only the right to enjoy for her life the income from the properties after meeting the taxes. The four items allotted to the widow for her lifetime were also the subject of division b...
Tag this Judgment!Sakunthalammal Vs. Chandrasekar Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad195
(1) This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment and the question raised is whether there has been a valid determination of the tenancy on forfeiture and whether proper notice under section 114-A of the Transfer of Property Act has been issued for institution of the suit in ejectment. The trial court found for the defendants on this question and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of North Arcot held that the notice in question satisfied all the requirement under section 114-A and gave judgment and decree for the plaintiff in ejectment.(2) One Lalkhan Sahib was the original lessee. He obtained a lease from one Narayanaswami Reddiar, the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiff of a vacant site for constructing a residential building therein. The document evidencing the lease is a registered one in two parts Ex A-1 is the counterpart of the lease executed by Lalkhan in favour of Narayanaswami Reddiar and Ex. B-1 is the instrument executed by Nara...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhanan Pillai Vs. Kaliamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad105
(1) The first defendant in a suit on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Padamanabhapuram, the decision in whose favour was reversed on appeal by the District Judge, Kanyakumari, is the appellant in the second appeal. Though the relief in the suit is one for partition, the substantial question involved is the validity of a family arrangement entered into during the minority of the plaintiff by the plaintiff's mother as guardian. The suit properties were held as joint family properties by the plaintiff's father Aiyappan Pillai Madhavvan Pillai who died on 17th January 1949. He died leaving Janardhanam Pillai the appellant who is the son by his first wife, the plaintiff his daughter by his second wife, and the second wife Lakshmi the second defendant in the suit. On 15th July 1958 on behalf of the plaintiff her minor daughter and on her own behalf the second defendant entered into the family arrangement evidenced by a registered deed of partition (Ex. A 1 registration copy), whereunder...
Tag this Judgment!Podi Alias Vedachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ74
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellant Podi alias Vedachalam has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Adu alias Arumugham, by forcibly fisting him on his head, neck, etc., at Dhobikhana Maidan in Otteri at 12 noon on 9th November, 1965; and sentenced to imprisonment for life.2. The deceased Adu alias Arumugham organised gambling activities at Dhobikhana Maidan near Government Firewood Depot, Otteri, and during inclement weather, cards play used to take place in the Mottai Amman Temple nearby. On the date of occurrence, 9th November, 1965, there was drizzling in the morning and cards were therefore played in the Mottai Amman Temple. P.Ws. 1, 7 and 10 and the deceased formed one set of players; and P.Ws. 3, 5, 11 and 14 the other P.Ws. 6, 8, 15 and 16 were there witnessing the play. At about 10 or 10-30 A.M., the deceased Arumugham left for his house deputing as usual P.W. 15 Gopal to collect the fees (Kottai Kasu). P.W. 13 Kothandan took the place of...
Tag this Judgment!M. Gopal Gounder Vs. the Panchayat Board by Its President and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ81
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a member of Manalurpet Panchayat praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the resolution of the Panchayat Board, Manalurpet, dated 31st August, 1965, directing the petitioner to be removed and to quash the order.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the panchayat on 8th April, 1965. On 19th August, 1965, the Panchayat Extension Officer, Mugaiayoor Panchayat Union, having jurisdiction over the first respondent Panchayat Board, wrote to the President of the Manalurpet Panchayat stating that the petitioner is not qualified to be a member of the panchayat under Section 26 (d) of the Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) and called upon the Panchayat to explain why no action was taken to remove the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat. Appropriate action was threatened in case the Panchayat did not take steps to remove the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat. In pursuance of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.R. Swamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC261(Mad)
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioner is the same in all these revision cases. He has been convicted under Section 45(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 35, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks in each case, by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Madras. These revisions relate to non-payment of tax for the years 1954-55 to 1961-62. There is no dispute in these cases that the demand notices were served on the petitioner. The petitioner asked for time for payment. In spite of the authorities having granted time, he failed to pay the tax. Hence the prosecution.2. The only point raised in these revision cases by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has not proved that the petitioner fraudulently evaded the payment of tax. It is clear from Section 45(2)(b) that mere evasion of payment of tax or failure to pay tax is not an offence. But the prosecution should prove that the petitioner failed ...
Tag this Judgment!V.T. Ramaswami and anr. Vs. the Management of Gemini Studios, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad49; [1967(15)FLR359]; (1967)ILLJ794Mad
ORDER1. These three revision petitions are to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in P.W.A. Nos. 6, 8 and 9 of 1962. The petitioner in C.R.P. 1002 and 1003 of 1963 is the same. He as well as the petitioner in C.R.P. 1001 of 1963 are tailors in Gemeni Studios. They applied to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who is the authority competent to deal with applications under Payment of Wages Act, for directing their employer to pay them overtime wages. The Additional Commissioner dismissed their applications on the ground that they were not workmen as defined in S. 2(1) of the Factories Act, and therefore the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act would not be applicable to them. On appeal, the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, came to the conclusion that 'person employed' mentioned in the Payment of Wages Act cannot be equated to 'worker' as defined in the Factories Act and that the applicants could not be considered as persons worki...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Lingan and Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad76; [1967]19STC349(Mad)
ORDER(1) This batch of writ petitions raise a common question of law, viz., whether a revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act 1959 and the Board of Revenue under Sec. 35, against a notice by way of composition under Section 46 of the Act.(2) The petitioners are alleged to have committed various offences, such as, failure to send a return as required under Rule 9(1), failure to maintain true and correct accounts and records as required under Section 40, failure to send an advance estimate of turnover as required under Section 13, contravention of restriction or conditions notified under Section 17 (Section 18), wilful submission of untrue return punishable under Section 15(2)(a) and the like composition of the offences aforesaid as provided in Section 46 of the Act. Under the section, the prescribed authority may accept, from any person who has committed or reasonably suspected of having committed an offence against this Act, a certa...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamma Pillai Devaki Amma and anr. Vs. Kanakku Velayutham Pillai Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad453
(1) This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for declaration of their title to and for partition and separate possession of the eastern 3/4 the share in the plaint scheduled property and certain other reliefs. They succeeded in their claim in the District Munsif court, Kuzhithurai, but lost in appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil. The total extent of the suit property which goes under the name Panichathadi Nilam is 12 kurnies or 72 cents. The actual dispute is only in regard to one Kurni or 6 cents, the principal contestant being the third defendant, and the defence in the main is rested on the principle of constructive res judicate. The relevant facts may therefore be set out.(2) The suit property, it is stated belonged to Munichara Matam in jenmi right and has been demised on Kanom by the Matam with the tarwad of defendants 1 to 3. The defendants' tarwad under Ex. H dated 30-9-1073, M. E. othied the western one-third of the property t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »