Chennai Court December 1969 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.
Public Prosecutor Vs. T.K. Viswanathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ573; (1970)2MLJ43
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the two respondents, by the Special Judge, Madras, in C.C. No. 2 of 1967.2. The two respondents were tried by the Special Judge, Madras, under fifteen charges, the main charge being conspiracy. They were acquitted of all the charges.3. The substance of the main charge of conspiracy is that the respondents during the period between April, 1964 and February, 1966 being public servants were parties to a criminal conspiracy at Madras and other places by agreeing to commit or cause to be committed offences punishable under Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by obtaining large sums of money from firms and persons with whom both of them had official dealings, either without consideration or for consideration which both of them knew to be inadequate and by otherwise abusing t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramdas Pharmacy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1969
Reported in: [1970]77ITR276(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in both the cases is the same. The assessee is an unregistered firm carrying on business in drugs and chemicalsincluding tinctures and essences. For the assessment year 1952-53 the assessee-firm filed a return of income on September 11, 1952, disclosing a net profit of Ks. 54,107. The Income-tax Officer felt that the gross profit disclosed by the assessee worked out to 8% which was considered to be too low when compared with the gross profit of 15% arrived at in the earlier years. He, therefore, scrutinised the account books of the assessee and discovered certain discrepancies between the assessee's books and the books of Messrs. Amrit Laboratories Ltd. from whom the assessee had purchased goods of the value of Rs. 4,00,000 odd. He also discovered huge deposits amounting to Rs. 2,79,112 in the bank accounts of some of the partners of the firm. When called upon to explain these discrepancies and the deposits, the partner representing the assessee-firm expla...
The Principal, Medical College, Pondicherry and anr. Vs. M.J. Vincent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad424; (1970)2MLJ307
1. This appeal by the Union Government arises from an order of Ramakrishnan J., quashing the termination of the respondent from service by an order dated 23-9-1960, of the Principal of the Pondicherry Medical College. It was found that the respondent had misappropriated as on 9-5-1960, a sum of Rs. 841-46 when he was serving as a cashier. He was placed under suspension immediately pending enquiry. By an order dated 22-9-1960, of the Principal, the respondent was directed to make good the money and, pursuant to that direction, the sum was adjusted against his security deposit in the form of savings bank account pledged with the Principal. The next day the termination order was made. It said that the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from the date of service of the order and that he would be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for one month, which was the period of notice due to him. There was an appeal and a revision by the respondent whic...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector Vs. M. Chinnasamy an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ686
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The State is the appellant and the claimant is the crossobjector. The subject-matter in A.S. No. 380 of 1964 consists of lands in which the owner has an one-third share. The survey numbers acquired in this appeal are S. Nos. 64/2, 64/3, and 92/2. Reckoning the owner's 1/3rd share therein, he was entitled to an extent of 2.3 acres therein. It is not in dispute that the 67 cents in S. No. 64/2 belonging to the owner, abuts a road and the rest of the properties are interior and not accessible to a public road. In appeal No. 381 of 1964, the extent of the lands acquired is 2.82 acres in S. No. 109/2. All the above lands are situated in the village of Pattapalayam, Namakkal Taluk, Salem District, and they were acquired for the construction of the Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited, Mohanur and for the quarters of the staff of the said Mills. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), was made on 20th September,...
Sha Hastimal Khimchand Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: [1971]28STC255(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of prohibition restraining the assessing authority in each of the petitions to revise the assessments for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 on the ground that certain materials recovered in the course of sudden inspection of his business premises by the department, ought not to be relied upon for any purpose and much less for the purpose of revising the assessments as notified. Apparently these writ petitions were filed on the strength of the then precedents ruling on the subject. Now that the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors. v. R.S. Jhaver [1967] 20 S.T.C. 453 (S.C.) has expressed the view that such inspections and recovery of material and documents, which according to the revenue are incriminating in nature, are valid and can be relied upon the writ of prohibition asked for cannot be issued. Even otherwise this Court in Annamalai Chettiar & Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Offic...
Soliappa Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ383
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants in this second appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows. One Pongali and Nanjappa were members of a joint family. Pongali died on 14th September, 1950, leaving behind him his widow Pachai Ammal, son Ramaswami and four daughters,--the plaintiffs in the present action. Pachayammal died on 19th December, 1956 and Ramaswami died in 1959. The first defendant is Ramaswami's widow and the second defendant is her daughter. On nth December, 1950, Nanjappa and Ramaswami effected a partition of the joint family properties at which for Ramaswami's share about 9 acres were allotted, which included the suit properties of an extent of 7 acres 70 cent. It will be noticed that at that time the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act of 1937 was in force and Panchayammal would be entitled to a half share in the right of her husband under Section 3 (2) of the said Act. But at that partition no provision was made for her and the entire hal...
In Re: J.L. Samuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ492
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Palayamkottai. He was convicted under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Inprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and also under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1) (a) of Indian Arms Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin. The Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, confirmed his conviction and sentence.2. This is a very unfortunate case where a Police Constable doing duty at the Police Station was accidentally hit by a bullet fired by the petitioner, resulting in his death. Both the Courts have found that the death of the Constable was caused by the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. It was also found that he used a fire arm unauthorisedly.3. The petitioner, during the relevant period, was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserved, Palayamkottai. On 16th December, 1966 ...
Doraipandian Pillai Vs. M.S. Sivagnanam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ242
M. Natesan, J.1. The short question for decision in this case is whether the tenancy of the appellant (defendant) has been validly terminated by a proper notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant was a lessee of the suit house from one Nagarathinam Pillai. The plaintiff-respondent in this second appeal purchased the house from Nagarathinam Pillai and admittedly after the purchase, the appellant-defendant (tenant) attorned to him. On 4th February, 1967 the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant terminating the tenancy. This notice was received by the defendant on 8th February, 1967, but the effect of the notice terminating the tenancy was waived by the landlord. The plaintiff subsequently appropriated the amounts sent by the defendant for rent due till the end of 22nd March, 1967 and in his plaint would claim rent for the further period of the month also. The notice which has been relied on by the plaintiff as terminating the tenancy entitling t...
Thava Pandian and ors. Vs. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ625
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether an execution sale can. be set aside on the ground that it was in variance with the priority of sales settled by the preliminary decree which was not embodied in the final decree in a mortgage action. The execution Court as well as Kailasam, J., have taken the view that the sale is not vitiated on that ground. We are in agreement with this conclusion.2. The execution related to a decree obtained on the foot of a third mortgage dated 3rd November, 1924. The preliminary decree in O.S. No. 68 of 1931 was passed on 10th December, 1934, and the final decree followed on 17th August, 1938. The hypotheca consisted of several schedules with reference to which, so far as the present appeal is concerned, lots 2 and 3 in the C schedule were directed by the preliminary decree to be sold last. On 18th June, 1935, the petitioners in the execution Court, of whom the present appellants are the legal representatives, purchased from the mortgago...
T.P. Sundaralingam Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad245
1. The Constitutional validity of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 1958 is questioned in the batch of appeals by different appellants against orders of Single Judges quashing grant by Government of permits in four of them to establish new rice mills, and dismissal of a petition to quash a similar grant. some of the appellants are existing rice mill owners in certain rural areas who opposed the grant of further permits, mainly o the ground of prevailing milling capacity, and inadequacy of paddy in the locality, for further permits.In one or two cases their contention was that in making the grants, Government had been influenced irrelevant considerations like the grantee having already incurred heavy expenditure in construction, and in the process of establishment of machinery. In one case, yet another ground was that Government was in error in equating 'locality' for the purpose of Section 5(4) to either a three mile radius, or a Panchayat area. These grounds were upheld.In a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »