Chennai Court April 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.
In Re: Samiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ229
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. There were three accused before the learned Sessions Judge of Tiruchirappalli division in S.C. No 107 of 1968. Periakkal, accused 1, was charged and convicted of the offence of abduction in order to commit murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. Accused 3 Samiappan, brother's son of the first accused, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to be hanged by neck till he is dead. He was also convicted under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, for concealing evidence regarding murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Accused 2 was acquitted of all the charges. Accused 1 and 3 have appealed against their conviction and sentence. The sentence of death imposed on accused 3 in also before use for confirmation.2. The deceased Rasammal was a Harijan woman. She marreid Raman P.W. 16 about 10 years prior to the occurrence. Rasammal and her husband fell ...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented Through Its General Manager Vs. G. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ272
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The respondent filed the suit against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway claiming damages in respect of loss of goods in transit. The goods were consigned at Madurai station to a place on the North Eastern Railway. The suit as would be noticed was laid against the Union of India, through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway. The question whether the suit was maintainable under Section 80 of the Railway's Act, was raised as an issue and it appears to have been contended by the North Eastern Railway that under Section 80 of the Railways Act, the suit was not properly laid. The Court below thought that since in the course of the correspondence the Southern Railway Administration had given some reply to the claimant, the respondent, apparently on behalf of the North Eastern railway, the suit was properly laid against the defendant.2. In this revision petition, the railway contends that since the Southern Railway is n...
Balasundara Gounder Vs. the Judicial Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ344
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This writ petition raises a question of some interest with regard to the scope of the powers of the prescribed judicial authority under Section 28 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. Under Section 26 of the Act, in so far as it is relevant for purposes of this case, a member shall cease to hold office as such if he acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with, or work being done for, any Panchayat or any Panchayat Union Council except as a shareholder (other than a director) in a company or except as permitted by rules made under this Act. The second respondent herein filed a petition under Section 28 of the Act to the prescribed judicial authority, that is, the District Munsif, Tindivanam, alleging that the petitioner had become disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat Board under the provisions of Section 26 above referred to. That petition was adjourned for a number of days and was finally dismissed for default. Subsequently it appears th...
In Re: Sundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ464
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The revision petitioner was the driver of an express bus MDR 4884 belonging to Jayaram Motor Service. Both the Courts below found the accused guilty under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to R. I. for six months. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 30th March, 1967. The revision petitioner was driving the bus along Tenkasi Road, two miles from Rajapalayam. He met with an accident resulting in the death of one Guruswami, aged about 30, who was driving in a cycle. The plea of the accused was that he drove the vehicle slowly and the cyclist came fast, crossed the road and suddenly fell down before his vehicle. Both the Courts below gave the finding that the accused drove the vehicles rashly and negligently, with the result the cyclist was killed on the spot instantaneously.2. I shall briefly set out the salient features of the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 to 3. P.W. 1 says that the express bus came fast from west to cast and dashed aga...
M.J. Delaflore and anr. Vs. Amir Mohammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad308
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution in somewnat unusual circumstances, which can be stated briefly. A suit O. S. No. 21 of 1968 was pending between Kichenaramanoudjam Chettiar (Plaintiff) and Alamelu Ammale and four other persons, in the Court of the Premier Instance at Karaikal. That suit was instituted on 7-4-1967. The Pondicherry Legislature passed the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act, 1966 (Act 12 of 1966). This Act provided for the replacement of the existing hierarchy of Courts dealing with civil law in the Pondicherry Union Territory (which was formerly a part of the overseas territories of France) by a hierarchy of Courts following the same pattern as in the Indian Union. To illustrate this, under Section 6(1) of the Act, the Tribunal Superieur d' Appel becomes the Court of the District Judge, the Tribunal of the Premier Instance becomes the Court of a Sub-Judge and the Court of the Judges de Paix becomes the Munsif's ...
In Re: R.V. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad503
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This revision proceeding arises under very singular circumstances, perhaps without any parallel in the cases that have come up in revisional jurisdiction before this court. O. S. No. 400 of 1966 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, was instituted by a plaintiff, on whose behalf Sri Baluswami has here submitted arguments before me, for a declaration that he (the plaintiff) belonged to the Tuluva Vellala community. In the affidavit, the plaintiff statesthat the said declaration was needed to be produced before the Public Service Commission with regard to the consideration of his claim for appointment. There was no defendant shown upon the record, and what the learned District Munsif did, after having taken up the suit for trial, was to call for objections by a kind of proclamation viz. beat of tom-tom, in the town. No one appeared in response to this proclamation, and the suit was decreed, after examining the plaintiff, on 13th April...
S.S.A. Gangamirthammal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR473(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The assessee, claiming to be a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act and having registered itself as such under the said Act and having intimated the banks and other authorities that such a partnership was started, basing its claim on a written agreement of partnership dated December 19, 1957, applied to the Income-tax Officer, under Section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the registration of the firm. Four ladies of the age group of over 55 years constituted themselves partners to carry on business under the name and style of ' S.S.A. Gangamirthammal and Company' and the business was to be in the purchase and sale of arecanuts, groceries, cycles and spare parts, chicory, etc. Soon thereafter, they constituted one A. Rajendran and S. Chandrahasan, one of whom was the son of one of the partners, as the duly constituted agents to carry on the business of the partnership. This was on February 28, 1958. The Income-tax Officer examined all the above...
R.V. Gopalan Vs. Nill
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ159
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This revision proceeding arises under very singular circumstances, perhaps without any parallel in the cases that have come up in revisional jurisdiction before this Court. O. S. No. 400 of 1966 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, was instituted by a plaintiff, on whose behalf Sri Baluswami has here submitted arguments before me, for a declaration that he (the plaintiff) belonged to the Tuluva Vellala community. In the affidavit, the plaintiff states that the said declaration was needed, to be produced before the public service Commission with regard to the consideration of his claim for appointments. There was no defendant shown upon the record, and what the learned District Munsif did, after having taken up the suit for trial, was to call for objections by a kind of proclamation, viz.. beat of tom-tom in the town. No one appeared in response to this proclamation, and, that suit was decreed, after examining the plaintiff, on 13th...
Panchayat Board, Karumandi-chellipalayam Vs. the Director of Rural Dev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad263
ORDER1. The petitioner is the Panchavat Board, Karumandi Chellipalayara in Coimbatore Dist. The area comprised within this Panchayat Board was originally part of the Perundurai Panchayat Board. Till 1957, a weekly market was being held within the area of what is now the Perundurai Panchavat Board. In that year, it was shifted to the area which now lies within the jurisdiction of the petitioner Panchavat Board. It is classified as a Panchavat Union market. Under Section 104 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, the Government have the power to apportion the income derived from Panchayat Union markets between the Panchavat Union Council and the Panchayat or order the payment of a contribution in respect thereof to the Panchavat or the Panchayat Union Council, as the case may be. In 1960, the contribution payable under this section was ordered to be paid to the petitioner Panchayat Board and it was fixed at 30 per cent. It was accordingly being paid for some years. In 1965, an order had bee...
T.A. Krishnaveni and anr. Vs. R. Palaniappan Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ280
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This writ petition is concerned with the effect and validity of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 6) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. Under Section 91 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, the Registrar or any person subordinate to aim empowered by the Registrar in that behalf may, subject to the rules and without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided by or under the Act, recover the various sums specified in Clauses (a) to (f) of that section, together with the interest, if any, due on such sum and the costs of process by the attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of the property of the person against whom such decree, decision, award or order, has been obtained or passed. Under Section 119 (2) (p) (iv) the Government have power to make rules for the enforcement of the decisions or awards in such proceedings and under Clause (ff) to prescribe the procedure for the attachment and sale of property under Section 91 of the Act...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »