Chennai Court November 1968 Judgments
In Re: V. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad333
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Subramaniam was convicted under Ss. 447, 379 and 188 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on each of the first two counts and simple imprisonment for one month on the last count, by the Sub-Magistrate, Tindivanam, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. But the learned District Magistrate, South Arcot. on appeal set aside the convictions under Ss. 447 and 379 I.P.C. and the sentences imposed in respect of the same, but confirmed the conviction of the petitioner only under Section 188 I.P.C. and modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.2. The complaint in this case was referred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,' Yillupuram, on the ground that ah order passed in M.C. 189 of 1962 on the file of that court on 13-11-1962 was disobeyed by the petitioner on 12-5-1966, The petitioner was the tenth respondent in the proceedings under Sec, 145 Crl. P. C. and h...
Tag this Judgment!international Oil Co., by Its Proprietor, Selvaraj, Madras Vs. Indian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad423; (1969)1MLJ605
Venkatadri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the proprietor of International Oil Co. against the Indian Oil Corporation, for an injunction restraining the defendant from withholding the supply of kerosene to the plaintiff. The supply of kerosene was on the basis of a contract entered into between the parties on 6-2-1964 (Ex. A-1). The defence to the suit is that since the plaintiff had not complied with the terms of the agreement embodied in Ex. A-1, he is not entitled for any continuous supply of kerosene and in any event, the suit itself is not maintainable. The plaintiff after some correspondence with the defendant had to file a suit for an injunction restraining the defendant, Indian Oil Corporation, from continuing the breach of contract, namely, withholding supply of kerosene and for damages for non-supply of kerosene. After the suit was filed, the Indian Oil Corporation by its letter dated 19-12-1964, terminated the contract itself. The q...
Tag this Judgment!V. Murugayya Chettiar and anr. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC500(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of suits instituted by two appellants for refund of licence fee of Rs. 3,300 and Rs. 4,600 respectively collected from them quite contrary to the provisions of the Sales Tax Act. The case of the appellants is that they are carrying on business in paddy and rice and that, from F953-54, they also carried on commission agency in the same business. They maintained separate accounts in respect of the two businesses. In respect of the commission agency business, the Sales Tax Authorities directed the appellants to take out agency licence, and accordingly the appellants had been taking out licence from the year 1953-54 till 1957-58. In 1958-59, the department discovered the mistake that they could not collect licence fee from the appellants, whereupon the appellants applied to the department for refund of the licence fee collected so far. The department refunded the licence fee collected for 1958-59, but refused to return the licence fee for...
Tag this Judgment!Veluchamy Gounder Vs. Chinnaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1458
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The above S. Rs. have been preferred by P. W. 1, to be admitted as appeal under Section 417(3), Criminal P.C., against the judgment of acquittal in C. C. 1992 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Dindigul. The office felt a doubt whether those S. Rs. could be admitted as appeal. Hence, they are posted before me fox orders.2. The learned Counsel, Sri Santhanam, who filed these S. Rs. submitted that the report filed by the police officer on a direction given by the Magistrate after taking cognisance of the private complaint filed under Section 190(1), Criminal P.C. must be deemed to be a report under Section 202, Criminal P.C. and that, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent must be deemed to be on the private complaint filed by the complainant and hence the provisions under Section 417(3), Criminal P.C. alone will apply and that these S. Rs. should be admitted as appeal.3. It is necessary to note briefly as to what happened in the cage before the ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.S.R.S. Subbiah Servai Vs. the Assistant Settlement Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ642
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This petition is filed by a claiment for a patta for 4.12 acres comprised in S. No. 23/3 Palayur Village, Tirupattur taluk. The petitioner and his brother's son claim to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Assistant Settlement Officer declined to grant patta. On appeal, the Settlement Officer confirmed the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner filed a revision to the Director of Settlements. The Director of Settlements by his order dated 31st October, 1965 set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and other subordinate officers and remanded the case to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, for fresh enquiry and disposal. The Director of Settlements also directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to get the land inspected, find out the actual survey numbers and extent claimed by the petitioner, verify correlation with reference to the revenue records and tile documents of the parties and decide the claim...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subba Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR794(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The substantial problem in the reference initiated by the assessee and relating to the assessment year 1959-60 is whether the inclusion of Rs. 38,880 for gift-tax is proper. That represented the total value of 208 'B' shares and 8 'A' shares held by the assessee in Udumalpet Palani Andavar Mills Limited. They stood registered in the books of the company right through in the name of the assessee. He was in receipt of the dividends referable to the shares, which he included in his income chargeable to tax. But the value of the shares was added to his return for purposes of gift-tax on the footing that he had by two settlement deeds dated respectively April 11, 1951 and March 31, 1959, made a gift of them absolutely to his daughter. She died on June 24, 1960 ; but the shares were not treated as part of her estate for estate duty. His case, which was not accepted by the Gift-tax Officer and the Tribunal, was that there was no actual transfer of the shares to his daughter....
Tag this Judgment!O. Chinnaswamy thevar and anr. Vs. the Executive Officer, Sree Meenaks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ450
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These writ petitions are filed by two persons employed in Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar etc., Devasthanams, Madurai. The charge against the petitioners was that they acted in an indisciplined manner by signing a memorandum given to a political leader, without obtaining permission, regarding the administration of the temple, and by attacking' the administration and the chairman of the board of trustees without any basis in the memorandum. In Writ Petition No. 803 of 1966 the petitioner was also charged for having written a letter to the editor and getting the memorandum published in an issue of Kannagi on 17th October, 1965. An enquiry was conducted by the Executive Officer. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were found guilty of the charges and they were dismissed from service by the Executive Officer. In these writ petitions the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executive Officer is not the authority empowered to punish the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!E.M. Narayanaswami Vs. T.V. Chinnathambi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ601
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Election Tribunal (District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli) setting aside the election of the appellant held on 2nd February, 1965 under the Madras Village Panchayat Act (XXXV of 1958) to Madakkudi Panchayat. Even at the time of the nomination of the appellant on 31st January 1965 as a candidate for the election, the nomination was challenged before the Presiding Officer on the ground of his disqualification under Section 25 (1) of the Act. But the Presiding Officer overruled the objection and allowed the appellant to contest The appellant got elected. On the Election Petition filed by the first respondent herein, a defeated candidate at the election, the Election Tribunal, finding the appellant disqualified under Section 25 (1) of the Act, set aside his eletion and declared the first respondent as duly elected in the place of the appellant. The basis of the disqualification...
Tag this Judgment!Thanka Nadar Vs. Manicka Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ377
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by one Thanka Nadar, who was declared elected to the Agastheeswaram Panchayat, but whose election was set aside by the Principal District Munsif (Election Commissioner), Nagercoil, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order.2. The petitioner was one of the contesting candidates for the election of members to the Agastheeswaran Panchayat. The other candidates who contested are respondents 1 to 5. On the counting of votes, it was found that the petitioner had polled 124 votes and the first respondent 123 votes. The first respondent herein preferred an application, O.P. No. 15 of 1965, under Section 178 of the Madras Panchayat Act challenging the election of the petitioner.3. The election of the petitioner was challenged on three grounds, namely, (1) that there was improper reception of nomination papers and improper rejection of 15 votes by the Returning Officer, (2) that the Returning Officer had failed to scrutinise carefull...
Tag this Judgment!D. Gobalousamy and anr. Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad419
1. In these related petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, XII of 1966 is challenged. W.P. No. 2634 of 1966 has been filed by D. Gobalousamy, Advocate Council and President of the Bar Association, Pondicherry and W.P. No. 3294 of 1968 by J. Gnany, President of the Court of First instance, Pondicherry, who, besides attacking the validity of the Act on general grounds, raises grounds personal to him.2. The impugned Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry, and received the assent of the President on 21st October, 1966. It extends to the whole of the Union Territory of Pondicherry and Section 1(3) of the Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Different provisions of the Act may be brought into force on different dates. The scheme of the enactment, in the main, is to substitute for the Tribunal Superieurd' Appeal, Courts of Tr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »