Chennai Court November 1967 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.K. Pothilingam Pillai and anr. Vs. Nagoor Meeran Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad94; 1969CriLJ416; (1967)2MLJ469
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. The petitioners in both these revision cases are the same. The first petitioner has been convicted under Sections 482 and 486. I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month and the second petitioner has been convicted under Section 486. I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one month in C. C. 1846 of 1965 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Sankarankoil. The criminal case was initiated on a private complaint filed by the respondent for an alleged offence of using false property mark imitating that of the complainant in manufacturing and selling bug poison. The complainant is a manufacturer and seller of a bug killer liquid called 'Byron' and his concern is known as Laila Co. M.O. 1 is a card board box containing the bottle of bug killer. The second petitioner was origi-nally working as an accountant under the complainant but he was discharged...
indrani Ammal and ors. Vs. A. Sambanda Appah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad366; (1968)2MLJ220
(1) This revision proceedings involves a very interesting question, upon which there would appear to be no direct authority of the Indian Courts, concerning the liability of the owner of certain premises for loss or damage caused to the property of a neighbour by fire which, according to the evidence, spread from the premises of that owner to the neighbour's property. The case is a little difficult, even apart from the paucity of Indian authorities, since the facts themselves have not been very clearly established. However, the first Court did find that the defendants (respondents) who are the landlords or proprietors, erected a thatched shed on their terrace a an undue height above the terrace wall, that this thatched shed took fire, and that the fire spread to the property of the neighbours revision petitioners) and caused damages. Actually, a buffalow belonging to the revision petitioners was destroyed by the fire, and the claim for Rs. 400, as damages was decreed by the trial Court...
Raman Nair Vs. State by the Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ217
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J. 1. The petitioner Raman Nair has been convicted under Section 313 read with Section 249 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to S.I. for one month.2. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was conducting a tea stall in T.S. No. 171/VIII Kallukatti East, Karaikudi, for a number of years, after obtaining the necessary licence from the Municipality. The land itself belongs to the Government and it has been vested statutorily in the Karaikudi Municipality as would appear from the Judgments of the Courts below and the evidence in this case. The petitioner was prosecuted on a prior occasion for running a tea stall without a licence but he Was acquitted as evidenced by the judgment, Exhibit D-7 mainly on the ground that if the petitioner had complied with the directions of the Council marked as Exhibit D-5 in that case, the prosecution would not have been launched. It was for the year 1956-57. The pe...
In Re: Andal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ356
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Plaintiff in this suit filed O.P. No. 35 of 1966 for the grant of Letters of Administration with the will annexed to the property and credits of her deceased father Rayapadi Nallasubbaiya under Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act and under the relevant rules framed in the Original Side of this Court. It was sought to be proved in the common form but as persons interested came on record and attacked the validity of the will, it became necessary for the plaintiff to prove the will in solemn form. The defendant having entered a caveat and opposed the grant, the Original Petition was converted into a Testamentary Original Suit, T.O.S. No. 7 of 1966, and this is the suit which is now being adjudicated upon.2. The plaintiff's case is that Exhibit P-2 is the last will and testament of her father Rayapadi Nallasubbsiya and the said, will was executed by him duly at Madras on the 16th day of February, 1955 in the presence of witnesses and the same has also...
Thailammal and ors. Vs. Angammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1967
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ420
M. Natesan, J.1. These second appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, and of these, Second Appeal No. 453 of 1965 by the defendants is directed against the decision of the Courts below granting the plaintiff a decree under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), the defendants having been directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of a half share in the suit property for the full consideration of Rs. 5,450 covenanted for sale of the entirety of the property. If these second appeals have to be disposed of by reference only to the grounds of second appeal, they may be dismissed straight-away as the substantial grounds of appeal do not raise any question of law. Mr. R. Kesava Ayangar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has raised a question of law at the time of arguments, and the excuse for entertaining it at this stage is that to an extent it is rested on the fact of presenta...
Veeraswami Mandiri Vs. K. Manicka Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad27
Natesan, J. 1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the 2nd defendant in a suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage of the suit property made by the plaintiff along with his brother Venkataswami Mudaliar in favour of the 3rd defendant in the suit, and for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the contesting defendants in the suit have perfected their title by adverse possession against the plaintiff; but on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has overruled the defence of limitation and decreed the plaintiff's claim for a half share in the suit property. 2. A brief survey of the salient facts and findings in the case is necessary for appreciating the respective contentions of the parties on the question of limitation, the only question for consideration. The suit property, dry land of an extent of 3 acres 20 cents, in North Virinchipuram Village, North Arcot district, belonged to the plaintiff and hi...
Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad33; 1969CriLJ206; (1967)IILLJ836Mad
1. The facts and the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions being substantially the same, they are dealt with together. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondents, the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Southern Range, Madras, praying for a direction to the respondents to do their duty and evict the labourers (127 persons) from the factory premises of the petitioner at the close of working hours. The writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the respondents, praying for the same relief as in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is stated (hat the writ petition has been filed by way of abundant caution in case it was felt that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition could not afford and adequate remedy. The petitioner filed affidavits in support of both the petitions. The second respondent filed counter affidav...
V. Mohamed Haneef and Co. and Ors. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad155; (1969)ILLJ586Mad
Natesan, J. 1. In these cases we are concerned with the true scope of the definition of 'factory' in Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (Central Act 34 of 1948) and whether the tanneries in question in these cases would come under that definition of 'factory'. For the tanneries it is contended that they do not, while the Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, contends that they do fall under the definition of 'factory' in the Act. A brief reference to the circumstance under which the question arises for determination is necessary at this stage for a proper appreciation of the problem.2. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1166 of 1962 owns a tannery at Ranipet in North Arcot District, wherein the several processes of tanning of hides and skins are carried on by manual labour. The premises where the tanning is carried on are enclosed with walls and within the premises the raw and dried skins and hides undergo various processes, such as soaking, lining, unhai...
Chelpark Company Limited Vs. the Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ458
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The facts and the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions being substantially the same, they are dealt with together. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondents, the Commissioner of Police, Madras, and the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Southern Range, Madras, praying for a direction to the respondents to do their duty and evict the labourers (127 persons) from the factory premises of the petitioner at the close of working hours. The writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to the respondents, praying for the same relief as in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is stated (hat the writ petition has been filed by way of abundant caution in case it was felt that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition could not afford and adequate remedy. The petitioner filed affidavits in support of both the petitions. The second re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›