Chennai Court July 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: Gunasingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ242
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The revision petitioner seeks to revise his conviction of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthukadai, charge-sheeted the petitioner and three others for an offence under Section 290, Indian Penal Code. The learned Special First Class Magistrate, Kuzhitburai, questioned the accused under Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, as to whether the accused caused public nuisance on 7th December, 1966, at 1 p.m. on the Enayam Keezhkulam Public Road. The accused pleased that they did not commit any offence. After examining P.Ws. 1 to 4 and considering the prosecution exhibits, the learned Special First class Magistrate, convicted the petitioner (and three others were acquitted in the Court below) for an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. From the entire proceedings it emerges clearly that the accused had no notice of the charge for an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. They were charged only for an off...
In Re: Pitchiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ403
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J. 1. The petitioner Pitchaiah Pillai seeks to revise his conviction under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act (III of 1888). The only question that arises in this case is whether the words attributed to the accused (petitioner) as proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, do constitute indecent or disorderly behaviour in any public place. The Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the occurrence has taken place in a public place. The prosecution case is that the petitioner came to the front of a pial in the house of P.W. 6 at Kadambur. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 were also there. P.W. 1, the complainant is the karnam of Kadambur and he was talking to the Executive Officer on the pial. At that time, the petitioner came there and questioned P.W. 2 as to what happened to the pipe connection to the house of one Chidambara Nadar applied for by him to the Panchayat Board. P.W. 2 replied that the matter was settled amicably with the assistance of the karnam. Thereupon, ...
A.N. Sabapathy Alias A. Narthanasabathy Mudaliar Vs. Ponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ322
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ponnammal, the plaintiff, against A. N. Sabapathy alias A. Narthanasabapathy Mudaliar, the defendant, for partition and separate possession of her half share and for accounts from 7th March, 1951 when the defendant entered into possession of the entire suit property. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 203 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru under the following circumstances.2. The suit property consisting of two items i.e., 93 cents in S. No. 36/4 and 6 cents in S. No. 162/25 in Devarajapettai Village, Papanasam Taluk, originally belonged to one Govindasami Mandrayar, the grandfather of the plaintiff. He left a will dated 9th September, 1917, dedicating the property to Gurupooja Charities. As per the said will the testator, Govindaswami Mandrayar and his wife were to conduct the charity till their lifetime and after their death one Dorai Ammal was to conduct the charities. After her death the pl...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary to Govt., Ministry ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad342
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The dispute has arisen between the appellant, which is the Union Government, and the respondent whether there was failure to carry out the work with a view to avoiding incurring of demurrage on the part of the former. The parties differed on the question whether the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause in the agreement which was for providing transport for goods of the Union from the Madras Port to Avadi. While on the one hand the Union relied on Clause 5(h) of the agreement to contend that it intended to prevent any difference arising under that clause from being referred to arbitration, the respondent maintained that even a difference within the ambit of Clause 5(h) would be within the purview of Clause 17, which provides for arbitration. Kunhamed Kutti, J. held that the arbitration clause applied and directed the Union Government to make a reference of the dispute for arbitration. The appeal arises from that order. 2. We are of opinion that the order of t...
The State of Madras Vs. Prem Industrial Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC507(Mad)
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The revenue seeks to revise an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by which it modified the penalty imposed. It is not in controversy, and, indeed, as found by the Tribunal, that the 'C' Forms had been misused and thereby an offence was committed within the scope of Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The department levied penalty at 10 per cent. on the view that, in the circumstances, the concessional rate would not be available and that the assessee would be liable to tax at 7 per cent, under Section 8(2). The Tribunal reduced the penalty to one and a half times the tax, as, in its opinion, for purposes of levying penalty, the rate of tax should be taken as that which would have been applicable if the offence had not been committed.2. We think the Tribunal's view is correct. The department's view does not give effect to the concluding words of Section 10-A, 'if the offence had not been committed'. The penalty under the Section should not exce...
The General Manager, Southern Railway and anr. Vs. P.K. Venkataraman a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ76Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These writ appeals have been filed by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, and the Railway Board, New Delhi, against the decision of Venkatadri. J. in W.P. Nos. 3026 of 1965 and 3110 of 1965 respectively. The petitioners in the two writ petitions are P.K. Venkataraman and T.N. Vijayarangam respectively, The main points were considered by the learned Judge in W.P. No. 3110 of 1965, and since the points in controversy were identical he followed the decision in W.P. No. 3110 of 1965 and disposed of W.P. No. 3026 of 1965. For the purpose of these appeals, we will briefly refer to the judgment in W.P. No. 3110 of 1965.2. The background of the writ petitions is set out in the judgment of the learned Judge (Venkatadri, J.) and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to it at any great length. But succinctly, it is this. During the period of the second World War, it was found extremely difficult to procure essential food-grains. To give relief to the railway employ...
The Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary to Government, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ247
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The dispute has arisen between the appellant, which is the Union Government, and the respondent whether there was failure to carry out the work with a view to avoiding incurring of demurrage on the part of the former. The parties differed on the question whether the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause in the agreement which was for providing transport for goods of the Union from the Madras Port to Avadi. While on the one hand the Union relied on Clause 5 (h) of the agreement to contend that it intended to preventy any difference arising under that clause from being referred to arbitration, the respondent maintained that even a difference within the ambit of Clause 5 (h) would be within the purview of Clause 17, which provides for arbitration. Kunhamed Kutti, J., held that the arbitration clause applied and directed the Union Government to make a reference of the dispute for arbitration. The appeal arises from that order.2. We are of opinion that the orde...
The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ539
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The Revenue seeks to revise an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by which it modified the penalty imposed. It is not in controversy, and indeed, as found by the Tribunal, that the 'C' Forms had been misused and thereby an offence was committed within the scope of Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Department levied penalty at 101/2 per cent. on the view that, in the circumstances, the concessional rate would not be available and that the assessee would be liable to tax at 7 per cent. under Section 8(2). The Tribunal reduced the penalty to one and a half times the tax, as, in its opinion, for purposes of levying penalty, the rate of tax should be taken as that which would have been applicable if the offence had not been committed.2. We think the Tribunal's view is correct. The Department's view does not give effect to the concluding words of Section 10A, 'if the offence had not been commited.'3. The penalty under the section should not e...
Queensland Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ151
Sadasivam, J.1. The appellant, the Queensland Insurance Co., Ltd in these appeals, was the second defendant in the three suits, O. S. No 132 of 1961 filed by Swaminatha Mudaliar O.S. No. 171 of 1962 filed by Lakshmikanthamma, wife of the said Swaminatha Mudaliar, and O. S. No. 84 of 1962 filed by the legal representatives of Sivagnana Thevar, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, for damages for rash and negligent driving of the motor car, MSY 4891 by one Pitchai, who was employed as driver by one N. Radhakrishnan, the then' owner of the car, who was impleaded as the first defendant in all the suits, resulting in a serious accident causing injuries to Swaminatha Mudaliar and his wife, Lakshmikanthamma and the death of Sivagnana Thevar. It is not disputed that the driver, Pitchai dozed off while driving the car along Tiruchirapalli-Turaiyur road and that this resulted in the car swerving from the road and dashing against the culvert near the milestone indicating 17 mi...
M. Kumarswami Mudaliar, Proprietor, Sri Balavinayagar Motor Service Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ95
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The first respondent was a driver in the petitioner's motor service. In pursuance of a domestic enquiry held by the petitioner, he was discharged from service. On 24th August, 1965, the Government referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, a dispute between the union to which the first respondent belonged and the petitioner. The order of discharge passed by the petitioner against the first respondent was sent by post on 24th August, and received by him on the 27th. The petitioner's contention before the Labour Court that he sent the, order by post on the 21st was not accepted by the Labour Court, and the matter will have to precede on the basis that the order of discharge of the first respondent was passed while an industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court and this is the view which the Labour Court has taken.2. The Labour Court, however, has proceeded on the basis that because the discharge of the first respondent was during the pendency of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »