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.
Bhandari Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ238Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This criminal revision case raises fur decision an interesting question about the scope of Sections 50 and 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), in the context of what is well known as the Desai Tribunal Award made in the industrial dispute between certain banking companies and their workmen. The Desai Award modified an earlier award known as the Sastri Award. Thiru K.N. Mudaliar J., before whom the criminal revision case came for disposal, considered that this case involved 'a complicated question of law, which has the character of substantial public importance.' That is how the criminal revision case has come before a Bench for disposal.2. The facts relating to the case are briefly as follows : On the complaint of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Erode, Sri Bandari, Deputy General Manager, Establishment Department, Administrative Office of the Canara Bank Ltd. Bangalore, was prosecuted before the S.D.M. Erode and convic...
Sri Bandari, Deputy General Manager, Establishment Department, Adminis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ388
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This criminal revision case raises for decision an interesting question about the scope of Sections 50 and 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), in the context of what its well known as the Desai Tribunal Award made in the industrial dispute between certain banking companies and their workmen. The Desai Award modified an earlier award known as the Sastri Award. Thiru K.N. Mudaliar J., before whom the criminal revision case came for disposal, considered that this case involved ' a complicated question of law, which has the character of substantial public importance '. That is how the criminal revision case has come before a Bench for disposal.2. The facts relating to the case are briefly as follows : On the complaint of the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Erode, Sri Bandari, Deputy General Manager, Establishment Department, Administrative Office of the Canara Bank Limited, Bangalore, was prosecuted before the S.D.M. Er...
S.P. Valliammai Achi Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR806(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a reference under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One S.P. Annamalai Chettiar died on August 6, 1954. The accountable person, his daughter-in-law, in her capacity as his sole executrix, declared that property worth Rs. 25,000 passed on his death. The deceased and his son had constituted a Hindu undivided family. By a deed dated September 7, 1953, the deceased, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 5,000 received from his son, purported to relinquish his share valued at that amount in the joint family assets. The revenue applied Explanation 2 to Section 2(15) and added Rs. 1,71,986 being the net value of the deceased's half share as having passed on his death. The revenue at all stages declined to accept that Section 9 had no application on the ground that the document aforesaid did not operate as a transfer. The reference to this court is of the question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 1,71,986 representing the value of t...
Meiyappan Servai Vs. Meenakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ156
ORDERS. Ganesan, J.1. This petition is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai in S. C. S. No. 699 of 1966.2. The respondent filed the suit in question for recovery of a sum of Rs. 400 (together with Rs. 88 interest on the said amount) advanced by him under a mortgage bond executed by the petitioner herein (defendant) in his favour on 12th June, 1962 for a sum of Rs. 750 on the allegation that subsequently the petitioner refused to have the mortgage registered. As per the mortgage deed, the balance of Rs. 350 had to be paid by the respondent before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. The Court had decreed the suit accepting the respondent's contention that the suit though filed on 13th, March, 1966 three years after the date of the mortgage bond, is saved from the bar of limitation, as the mortgage money of Rs. 750 is repayable in twelve months from the date of the bond.3. The only question which is pressed by the learned Counsel for the...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Mayakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ275
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is filed by the State of Madras for setting aside the order of acquittal of the respondent passed by Additional first Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, in C. C. No. 382 of 1966. The respondent was tried for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 2 (i) (a) and (l) punishable under Section 16 (1) of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act for his having been in possession of adulterated groundnut oil for sale.2. According to the complainant, the Food Inspector of Virudhunagar Municipality under the powers conferred on him to take samples of food articles for analysis under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, went to the grocery shop of the respondent in which he was selling groundnut oil in Door No. 51. Sevathipuram, II Street in Muthurampatti within Virudhunagar Municipal limits. At about 8-30 A. M. on 22nd November, 1965, he went to the respondent's shop. The respondent was in possession of groundnut oil in a tin which contained 4 or 5 litres of...
Rama Rao and anr. Vs. V. Chandra Gopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ460
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The 2nd defendant is the mother; the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are her two sons. She has another son who is not a party to the action. The mother and sons effected a partition of the joint family properties under Exhibit A-1 dated 21st July, 1943. Inter alia the partition deed provided that the plaintiff should take the ancestral house in which all the parties were by then residing, and the property was estimated at Rs. 13,000. On such reckoning, the equities between the coparceners were adjusted. It is, however, expressly recited that the parties have taken possession of their respective shares and they should enjoy them absolutely. There is, thus, an absolute and unreserved allocation of the family house to the plaintiff. A translation of Exhibit A-1 was given by the learned Counsel for the appellants and by consent the same was adopted by me. The material portion of Exhibit A-1 which is the basis of the appellants' cl...
The Public Prosecutor, Government of Pondicherry Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad311; 1970CriLJ1107
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Public Prosecutor. Government of Pondicherry, against the order of acquittal by the First Class Magistrate No. 2, Pondicherry. of the two respondents in C. C. No. 397 of 1966. on the private complaint filed by the Registrar of Companies. Pondicherry. against them under Sections 208-D (2). 208-E (3) and 244(3) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The second respondent is since dead.2. The Prosecution case is briefly this: Amara Pictures Private Limited was incorporated on or about 26-10-1949 as a private company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It had its registered office at No. 61. St.. Therese Street, Pondicherry. By a special resolution passed by the members of the Company on 15-5-1963, the Company was required to be wound up voluntarily and the two respondents were appointed as liquidators of the Company. The respondents had notified their appointment as the liquidators on 20-6-1963. By a ...
In Re: Mahali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ288; (1970)1MLJ450
Ramakrishnan, J.1. Three persons, Mahali, Maran and Palani, Harijans, residents of Hanniyada of Nilgiris were sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C, subject to confirmation by the High Court. The referred Trial is now before us. The condemned prisoners have also appealed and their appeals are also before us.2. On the night of 18-2-1968 it was found by P. W. 2 a watchman that a tank near Nilgiri's near Koonur, which used to receive supply from a dam higher up was not receiving its usual supply of water. The concerned authorities of the Water Works Department ultimately traced the block in the flow of water to a dead body wedged into the outlets hole of a 'break' pressure tank' which is shown in the rough sketch, Ex. P. 18 prepared by the police during the investigation. This break pressure tank is a rectangular structure, 71/2' x 31/2 with a depth of 7'3'. The in-let pipes and out-let pipe...
K. Venugopal Vs. P.S. Doyal Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ60
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant of a non-residential building against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Madras and affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority on the ground that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month from 1st June, 1964 to 28th February, 1966. The premises in question originally belonged to one Rathna Bai, to whom the petitioner had executed the latter Exhibit P-1 on 1st March, 1957 agreeing to pay the rent in advance by the first of every month. The respondent-landlord purchased the premises from Rathna Bai, and thereafter, the petitioner made an endorsement of Exhibit P-1 on 1st July, 1963 agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. '25 per month as against Rs. 20 payable previously under the terms contained therein. Alleging that the petitioner had committe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›