Chennai Court December 1968 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.
Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Hav. Maj. S. Rajaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ454
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is a singularly disquieting case, because of the delays of the judicial process revealed in the protracted history of this simple suit upon a negotiable instrument against two defendants. That apart, I may also add that the revision is pressed only as against the second defendant ,one of the two co-promisors, and that he has not appeared before this Court in spite of notice served, to contest the revision.2. It is an unfortunate fact that the suit was instituted on a lost promissory note. Though there is considerable evidence with regard to the contents of this note and the endorsements appearing thereon, nevertheless, the undeniable fact that the note is not available, does raise some difficulty with regard to one incidental issue, viz., the actual date of one endorsement of payment which, according to the plaintiff, was on 16th April, 1955. The relevant facts are as follows:3. The note itself was executed on 19th May, 1951 by both the defendants as co-...
In Re: Sathiaseelan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ379
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants have been convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorus imprisonment for one year under the latter count alone and no separate sentence was awarded in respect of former count.2. Accused 1 and 2 were Sanitary Inspectors of the 6th and 19th Wards of the Coimbatore Municipality, and they were deputed by the Health Officer, P.W. 4 Dr. Francis Xaxier, to take samples of milk and butter in the latter's ward. The third accused Rangaswamy was the Sanitary Maistry working under the second accused. On the morning of 7th March, 1966, at about 7-30 a.m. the accused met P.W. 1 K. Subramaniam, a milk vendor, took him to the Delhi Hotel to the west of the North Coimbatore Railway level-crossing and there they are alleged to have taken milk from P.W. 1 Subramaniam for ana...
V.S. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. A. Karupan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ538
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit for contribution filed by the respondent plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant were joint owners of a tea estate in Ceylon. Subsequently the defendant sold his share in it to the plaintiff. On 21st August, 1956, an agreement was entered into between the parties in connection with it. Clause 3 of the agreement is the provision on the interpretation of which the decision in this case will depend. It appears that a penalty had been levied by the Income-tax Department in respect of this tea estate. Under that clause the plaintiff was authorised to take necessary steps to have the penalty cancelled. But if the penalty was not so cancelled, the plaintiff was to bear two thirds of the penalty and the defendant the one-third. The plaintiff filed a suit for a half share of the expenses which he had incurred in connection with the proceedings taken to have the penalty cancelled. Those proceedings seem to have ...
A.R. Krishnamachariar Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ310
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a demand made against him by the Revenue Authorities, who are the respondents in this writ petition, for additional assessment and additional water cess under the provisions of the Madras Additional Assessment and Additional Water Cess Act VIII of 1963, for a number of fash's commencing from fasli 1372 to 1375. These demands according to the petitioner are for sums which represent a substantial increase over the assessment that he was previously paying in respect of 24.72 acres of wet lands under Patta No. 85 in. Arumbuliyur village, Uttiramerur Taluk, Chingleput District. The petitioners' grievance is that this heavy enhancement of the assessment payable by him had been made without giving him the statutory notice before an enhancement could be made under the provisions of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Collector of Chingleput, it is alleged that the notice had been properly served on the petitioner by affixture...
K.M. Senthivel Pillai and ors. Vs. Kulandaivel Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ555
K. Srinivasan, J.1. One Ammani Ammal is said to have founded a trust. The purposes for which the trust was created as at its inception are not known. But, in 1871, she executed what is called a deed of agreement, Exhibit, A-1. It set out that certain properties mentioned in the document which had been acquired by her and which were in her enjoyment at that time were to be looked after by the other party to the agreement, one Sankaran Servai. The properties consisted of what is described as a Mutt. Sankaran Servai was to live in the Mutt and he was to attend to her last rites, manage the affairs pertaining to the Mutt and effect improvements thereto. It finally stated that Sankaran Servai should perform the charities of the abovesaid Mutt and that he should not alienate the properties in any manner. This is the earliest document which gives any indication of the nature of the properties covered thereby. In the year 1874 Sankaran Servai executed a release deed, Exhibit A-2. It stated tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›