Chennai Court September 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.
Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ547
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In G. Narasingdas Agarawal v. Union of India (1967) 1 M.L.J. 197, Kailasam, J., dismissed a number of writ petitions, declining to issue Writs of prohibition in. those cases, restraining the respondents, namely, the Union of India, the Collector of Customs, Madras, and the Deputy Collector of Customs, Vishakhapatnam, from taking further action in pursuance of a large number, of show cause memorandum; served on the writ appellants. The present appeals are from this judgment, and essentially, they involve the issue whether, under the stated circumstances, the respondent authorities would have jurisdiction to proceed further, in respect of an alleged offence under Section 12 (1) read with Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. The matter has been elaborately argued before us, and admittedly, it involves a question of interest and significance. The facts have been dealt with by the learned Judge (Kai...
Sivaprakasa Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Speci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ8
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing S. No. 154, an extent of 2.44 acres which was notified under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Fort St. George Gazette for acquisition, and the purpose for the acquisition, which was stated in that notification, was the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in Kanniappanagar and other slums in the Madras City. At that time, the enquiry under Section 5-A was proposed to be dispensed with and the urgency clause in Section 17 (4) was applied. In W.P. Nos. 1094 of 1959 and 151 of 1960, this Court struck down that part of the notification which invoked Section 17 (4) for dispensing with the application of Section 5-A, with the result that the acquisition had to proceed from the stage of the notification under Section 4 (1). It may be necessary to point out that at the time when the aforesaid writ petitions were filed, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act had also been made on 26th November, 1958. The pet...
In Re: Valaguru Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad85; 1969CriLJ394
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. On appeal, the Sessions Judge. Tiruchirapalli, confirmed the conviction and sentence. The following facts are not disputed before me:--2. The Food Inspector. (P. W. 1) found the petitioner carrying milk in a chombu covered with a tumbler at about 8 a.m. on 13-3-1965 in the outskirts of Manapparai. P. W. 1 called the petitioner for the purpose of taking sample milk when the petitioner was going at a distance of half a furlong from him. The petitioner poured the entire milk from the chombu in the paddv field, threw away the chombu and the tumbler and ran away. P. W. 1 seized the chombu and the tumbler and filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he prevented him from taking the sample.3. It is conte...
Madras Cine Service by Sole Proprietor T.S. Lakshmi Vs. Shyamala Pictu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ205
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The question involved in this civil revision petition is of some-importance as it deals with the powers of the new trial Bench of the Court of small causes in presidency towns under Section 38 of the presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882. The relevant facts are as follows:2. The respondent (plaintiff) instituted a suit for recovery of moneys being the hire charges of a camera, on the foot of an agreement Exhibit P-1 executed by the petitioner (defendant) on 29th September, 1963. The plea of the petitioner was that the agreement is vitiated by undue influence and coercion and therefore un-enforceable The trial Court dismissed the suit, being of the view that Exhibit P-1 was taken under coercion and undue influence. The new trial Bench how ever, reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for The question is whether the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes could, the decision of the trial Court, and if it did desire to so reverse ...
Lakshmiammal Vs. Samiappa Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad310; (1968)1MLJ226; 1968 Cri LJ 1084
(1) The appeal and revision arise out of the judgment in C.A. No. 230 of 1964 by the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division. The appellant is the complainant. The revision petitioners are the accused.(2) The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, alleging that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and caused extensive damage and mischief to the water-pipes laid by the complaint for taking water from a channel to his lands, punishable under Ss. 148 of 430, I.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under S. 148, I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 430, I.P.C. On appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence under S. 430, I.P.C., but acquitted them under S. 148, I.P.C. Hence, the complainant preferred the appeal against the acquittal under Sec. 148, I.P.C. and the accu...
Kalyani Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ188
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, to notify the applications of the petitioner dated 29th November, 1965 for the grant of permits on the routes : (1) Tiruppur to Coimbatore via Avanashi and Karumathampatti, and (2) Tiruppur to Erode via Perumanallur, and which were returned by the Authority for of presentation and were re-presented on 19th August, 1966 and to dispose of the said applications along with the other applications received in pursuance of the notification of the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of permits on the said routes. The petitioner suo motu applied for permits for the routes abovementioned by his application dated 29th November, 1965. The Regional Transport Authority returned the petitioner's applications with the endorsement that he may apply as and when applications are invited under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This endorsement...
C. Krishnaswami Rao Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC146(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. We shall take up T.C. No. 206 of 1964 first. The assessee in this case was one Krishnaswami Rao. For the year 1959-60 he returned a turnover in respect of supply of bricks to the Neyveli Lignit Corporation. Against that total turnover he claimed an exemption on a turnover of over Rs. 53,000 and odd, as covered by charges for transport. The exemption was denied by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the ground that no bills had been issued in which charges of transport had been separately indicated and claimed. It was held by the assessing authority that the assessee supplied bricks, which the Corporation paid for at the rate of Rs. 39 per 1000 bricks. Accordingly the entire turnover was assessed to tax. An appeal was taken. Once again the appellate authority held that the assessee manufactured bricks and sold them to the Corporation and that the deduction in respect of transport charges was permissible only where the dealer specified and charged them in the bill separ...
Ramaswami Goundar Vs. the Board of Revenue, Madras by the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ124
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The scope of this writ petition lies within a narrow compass and it will be sufficient to set out the facts briefly to the extent that is necessary for the disposal of the points in controversy. The petitioner Ramaswami Gounder relied on two pattas granted by the proprietor of the Rasipuram estate. Patta 726 was granted in respect of 10 acres situated in S. No. 172/9 of the former inam estate of Rasipuram village by an order of assignment by the proprietor in 1943, a date prior to 1st July, 1945, and Patta No. 730 was granted in respect of 4 acres 5 cents situated in the same S. No. 172/9, by an order of the proprietor on 4th September, 1945, subsequent to 1st July, 1945. The Rasipuram estate was notified and taken over by the Madras State under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) with effect on and from 3rd January, 1951. Pursuant to the above, the estate, was surveyed and S. No. 172/9 was found to be a tank-bed. Re...
In Re: Valaguru Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ307
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli. On appeal, the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli confirmed the conviction and sentence. The following facts are not disputed before me:2. The Food Inspector (P.W. 1) found the petitioner carrying milk in a chombu covered with a tumbler at about 8 a.m. on 13th March, 1965 in the outskirts of Manapparai. P.W. 1 called the petitioner for the purpose of taking sample milk when the petitioner was going at a distance of half a furlong from him. The petitioner poured the entire milk from the chombu in the paddy field, threw away the chombu and the tumbler and ran away. P.W. 1 seized the chombu and the tumbler and filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he prevented him from taking the sample.3. It is co...
S.R. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Papanasam Labour Union, Ambasamudram and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad401; (1969)IILLJ427Mad
1. This is an appeal by the defendant under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Anantanarayanan J. as he then was. Agreeing with the Courts below him, he held that the suit was within time. The correctness of this view is the only question for consideration. There were other points in controversy which were decided at the earlier stages, but none of them now survives.2. The appellant as President and Secretary of the Papanasam Labour Union, which was then unregistered, collected subscriptions between the middle of 1938 and April 1943 from the labourers In the Papanasam Mills and issued printed receipts, some of which were stated for the building fund. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for rendition of accounts and for recovery from the appellant of such amount as might be found due from him to the respondents. Respondents 2 to 5, who are among the labourers of the Madurai Mills at Ambasamudram before 16th October 1943, figured as plaintiffs 2 to 5, for themselves and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »