Chennai Court December 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.
K.R. Seshan Vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad275; (1969)ILLJ575Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, whose probation was terminated, for the issue of a writ of certiorari after calling for the records connected with the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police dated 11-1-1963 which was confirmed on appeal by the Inspector-General of Police on 30-9-1963 and by the Government of Madras on 4-9-1965.2. The petitioner was enlisted as a constable in 1935 and was promoted as Sub-Inspector in 1949.3. He was reverted in 1952 for want of vacancies. Again on 8-10-1958 he was promoted to officiate as Sub-Inspector and put on probation for two years. On 30-5-1960 a charge memo was served on him by the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, and ultimately (the probation of) the petitioner was extended by one year on 5-9-1960 by way of punishment. Again on 25-4-1962 a charge memo was served on the petitioner which was received by him on 20-5-1962. Six charges were framed against him. The first charge related to unsati...
Tamlinad Transports (Private) Ltd. Vs. Mariappan (M.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1967
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ90Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two writ petitions for the relief of certiorari are filed by the management and the onion or workers respectively under Article 221 of the Constitution under the following circumstances.2. The Tamilnadu Transports, Coimbatore (Private), Ltd., the management in these cases, claim to have suffered loss in their earnings, when the number of permits for bases which they were enjoying was reduced. Thereupon they took steps to retrench certain workers whom they found to be surplus. By a notice Ex. M. 10 which was published in accordance with Rule 62 of the Industrial Disputes Rules they prepared a list of parsons proposed to be retrenched mentioning 5 March 1964 as the data of retrenchment. Individual notices were also sent to the workers proposed to' be retrenched wherein they ware told that they could go over to the office of the management on 7 March 1964 to collect the arrears of salary and other amounts which would be due to them under the rules as a consequence...
R. Baluswami Chettiar Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC412(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner in these writ petitions, Messrs R. Baluswami Chettiar, is a partnership firm carrying on business as manufacturers and dealers in vessels at Angeripalayam in the Coimbatore district. These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruppur Rural, from proceeding further in pursuance of a notice issued by him to the petitioner on 31st January, 1965, for the purpose of reassessing the petitioner for escaped turnover for the years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The circumstances under which the writ petitions were filed, as revealed in the affidavit of the petitioner, are briefly the following: For the years mentioned above, assessments had already been completed in respect of the aforesaid business in vessels at Angeripalayam, the assessee being a joint Hindu family which had been in charge of the business for over 3...
In Re: Gnanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ292
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The three petitioners before this Court were tried along with 19 others before the learned Sub-Magistrate, Keeranur, for offences under Sections 147 and 225 read with 149, Indian Penal Code. 19 of the 22 were acquitted. The petitioners alone Were convicted, under Sections 147 and 225, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months under each count, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pudukkottai, the conviction under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners was confirmed and the conviction under Section 225, Indian Penal Code ,was set aside and the petitioners were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that three persons alone cannot form members of an unlawful assembly and as the prosecution case as well as the charge Was that only 22 persons before the Cour...
In Re: Rangaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ452
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The two appellants were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and 324, Indian Penal Code, respectively. The first accused was found guilty under Section 304 (Part I) Indian Penal Code and the second accused under Section 324, Indian Penal Code. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and the second accused was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs. 200 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six weeks.2. There seems to have been some slight trouble between the parties before the occurrence. But on the day in question accused 1 and 2 and another Arumugham.. were returning from the cinema after witnessing the first show. When they were so returning, the deceased as well as a number of people met them on the way and during the course of that meeting the deceased is said to have caught hold of accused 1's shirt. The deceased al...
Ponnumuthu Vs. Krishnan Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ224
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The appellant purchased two plots marked H and H-1 in S. No. 726 from one Johnson. This Johnson filed a suit O.S. No. 211 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif of Kuzhiturai and in the final decree the plots H and H-1 as shown in the plan Exhibit A-3 attached to that decree were allotted to Johnson's share. The respondents herein Were defendants 2 to 5 in that suit. They were allotted a plot J in S. No. 726. The appellant preferred a complaint to the; Sub-Magistrate, Eraniel, alleging that the respondents had removed fruits from a tamarind tree standing in plot H-1. The learned Sub-Magistrate held that the offence against the respondents had been made out and found them guilty. But instead of sentencing them, he released them under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing a bond for Rs. 100 to be of good behaviour for a period of six months. An appeal by the respondents to the learned District Magistrate of Kanyakumari succeeded and hence...
Kandaswami Weaving Factory and Company (by Managing Partner J.K.K. Sun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ572Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner who runs a handloom as well as power-loom factory is a person who is hound to make a contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act for the employees in his establishment. The petitioner took up the stand that in his establishment there were no employees as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act 34 of 1948, the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, that what obtained between himself and the workers in his factory was only a contract for service and not a contract of service and therefore he was not bound to pay contribution in respect of the workers under the aforesaid Act. But the Employees' State Insurance authorities rejected his contention and held that he was liable to pay the contribution under the Act, Against the order of the Regional Director of the Insurance Corporation demanding payment of contribution the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 75...
Kandaswami Weaving Factory and Co., a registered Partnership firm by m ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ436
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner who runs a handloom as well as power-loom factory is a person who is bound to make a contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act for the employees in his establishment. The petitioner took up the* stand that in his establishment there were no employees as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Act XXXIV of 1948, the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, that what obtained between himself and the workers in his factory was only a contract for service and not a contract of service and therefore he was not bound to pay contribution in respect of the workers under the aforesaid Act. But the Employees' State Insurance authorities rejected his contention and held that he was liable to pay the contribution under the Act. Against the order of the Regional Director of the Insurance Corporation demanding payment of contribution the petitioner filed an appeal under Secti...
In Re: Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ387
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Shevapet, under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act, for having been guilty of indecent behaviour in a public place, that is a tea-shop and sentenced to pay a. fine of Rs. 10. The only point argued is that a tea-shop cannot be said to be a public place. ' Public place ' is defined in Section 3 of the Act as meaning a place including a road, street or way, whether a throughfare or not, and a landing place to which the public are granted access or have a right to resort or over which they have a right to pass. In Mangubhai v. Emperor A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 369, a hotel has been held to be a place-to which the public are permitted to have access. In the Crown Prosecutor v. Moonooswamy I.L.R. (1910) Mad. 83, an arrack-shop has been held to be a public place within the meaning of Section 75. In Natarajan v. State (1963) M.W.N.172, a barber's saloon has been held to be a public place, as defined in ...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Chingleput Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ596
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The point that arises in this appeal is a very simple one. It is whether the State of Madras, acting through its officers, agreed to purchase certain pieces of machinery from the respondent and whether any such agreement operates as a binding contract. The contention of the State of Madras, which is the appellant, before the Court below was that whatever might have been the position during the earlier stages of the negotiation, there was no concluded contract for the purchase and that the claim made by the respondent plaintiff to recover any sum as the value of the machinery is not maintainable. The following facts are necessary to clarify the stand taken by either party.2. The respondent was the owner of an extent of over 17 acres of land which he was running as a farm. He had fitted up an oil engine, electric motors, pump lines and masonry channels to carry on water as part of the equipment of the farm. It is not in dispute that originally the property was taken o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »