Chennai Court January 1970 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: Kasthurirangam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1316
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. A.1 to A-18 and A.15 are the petitioners. The entire occurrence was a sequel to an agrarian dispute. The facts and findings are elaborately set down in the judgments of the two Courts below. In the circumstances of the case, and on the facts proved, the learned Counsel was unable to question the correctness or the propriety of the convictions of A-l to A-8.2. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, in paragraph 14 of his judgment:The circumstances mentioned reveal that the prosecution has improved the case so far as the complicity of A-9 to A-13 and A-15 is concerned and specific overt acts have been attributed to them only subsequently. The fact that P. W. 1 had stated in Ex. P. 1 and subsequently reiterated before the Committing Magistrate) that some unknown persons also beat him and when P. W. 1 is unable to mention on which parts of the body, parsons other than the accused beat him, it is doubtful. Whethe...
K.S. Ramaswami Vs. the Inspector of Municipalities and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ1
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. These writ appeals have been preferred by the State of Madras and one K.S. Ramaswami against the order of Kailasam, J. allowing the W.P. Nos. 538 and 539 of 1968 filed by one P. Murugaiyan, setting aside the order of the Inspector of Municipalities, appointing K.S. Ramaswami as the Manager of Erode Municipality and restoring that of the appointment of committee appointing P. Murugaiyan for the said post.2. Under Section 73 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the appointments to all posts under the Municipal Council, other than those specified in Sections 12-C and 72 of the Act, the pay or the maximum pay of which exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, shall be made by a committee consisting of the chairman, the Commissioner and one member elected by the Council, subject to any rules, including the rules for the representation of the different communities which the State Government may make in this behalf. Under Rule 7-B of the Rule...
In Re: Kasthurirengan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ83
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. A-1 to A-13 and A-15 are the petitioners.2. The entire occurrence was a sequel to an agrarian dispute. The facts and findings are elaborately set down in the judgments of the two Courts below. In the circumstances of the case and on the facts proved, the learned Counsel was unable to question the correctness or the propriety of the convictions of A-1 to A-8.3. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the finding of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in paragraph 14 of his judgment,The circumstances mentioned reveal that the prosecution has improved the case so far as the complicity of A-9 to A-13 and A-15 is concerned and specific overt acts have been attributed to them only subsequently. The fact that P.W. 1 had stated in Exhibit P-1 and subsequently reiterated before the Committing Magistrate, that some unknown persons also beat him and when P.W. 1 is unable to mention on which parts of the body, persons other than the accused beat him, it is doubtful, wheth...
E.S. Athithyaraman Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ614
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner joined the service of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 1st April, 1949 . He was confirmed in the cadre of clerk on 10th October, 1960. The post of Inspector also belonged to that cadre. He was promoted to the cadre of Upper Division Inspector on 1st April, 1961, and confirmed in the said cadre of Assistants, including Inspectors, from 1st July, 1966. When the petitioner was functioning as Inspector, Dharapuram, from 5th May, 1958 to 3rd November, 1959, he was alleged to be guilty of certain irregularities in the discharge of his duties. Consequently, on 14th April, 1960, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (Administration Department), Coimbatore, framed four charges against the petitioner and called upon him to submit his explanation within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the charges on 25th May, 1960, the petitioner submitted his explanation with reference to the said charges. By a . commu...
M.S. Venkataraman and ors. Vs. M.V. Sundaresan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad425
Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals under the Letters Patent raise a question of limitation. The final decree in the suit for partition was made on 25-2-1957 and it was amended by a further order dated 25-7-1958. Under Clause (3) of the final decree, the appellants were entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of plaint schedule items 5 and 6 which were in deposit in court They were similarly declared by the final decree to be entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of item 8 covered by Clause (4) of the final decree. This amount was also in court deposit. In October 1963, the appellants took out an execution petition for payment out of a sum of Rs. 4639-6-0 out of the moneys lying in deposit. This sum had been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant towards mesne profits from January 1943 to November 1951. The question was whether this application was in time. The executing court decided the question in favour of the appellants, but, Ismail, J., on appeal, ...
In Re: Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ182
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The occurrence is on 17th January, 1968 at about 10 a. m. P.Ws, I, 2, 3, 4 and others went to the land of P.W. 1 for harvesting. As the accused were in a mood to give trouble, the police were informed of the same, On going to the fields P.Ws. 1 to 4 found all the accused on the western ridge of the land. Accused land accused 2 instigated the other accused to restrain P.W. l's party from harvesting the land. So when P.W. 1 and his party got into the field for harvesting the paddy P.W. 1 was restrained by accused 3 to accused 5, P.W. 2 and another were restrain. ed by accused 6 to accused 10 and P.W. 3 and another were restrained by accused 11 to accused 15. P.W. 6 after sending the information to the Deputy Tahsildar, Karaikudi pro. Deeded to Sakkottai and thereafter visited Eonjakudi at about 11 a. m. on 17-1-1968.When the police party were nearing Konja. kudi near Vembadi Ohei of P.W. 1, P.W. 6 law P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others were prevented by all the accused at ...
Papammal Vs. Dharman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ81
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She is aged, about 22 and the respondent is aged about 27. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent appears to have been solemnised in about July, 1967. According to the petitioner after living with the husband for nearly four months she was ill-treated cruelly and driven out from the respondent's house. She returned to her parental home and has been living there. Her further case is that the petitioner and her father went to the respondent's house and she was ready to live with him. But the respondent said that he did not want her.2. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner deserted the respondent. The respondent further maintains that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with one Madiga Chinnavadu and he was even caught red-handed. But these suggestions based on the case of the respondent were refuted by the petitioner. The petitioner further states that the respondent beat her and...
In Re: Duraisami Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ538
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The two petitioners (accused 1 and 2) seek to revise their conviction under Section 16(1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 (ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. On 31st March, 1967 at about 9-30 a.m. accused-2, the salesman employed by accused-1 in his grocery shop was found in possession of compounded miskey asafoetida for sale. Accused-1 was the owner of the grocery shop. Accused-2 sold six ounces of the compounded miskey to the Food Inspector P.W. 1, which on analysis was found to be misbranded. It is unnecessary for me to notice the other facts or the circumstances of the case for meeting the argument of the learned Counsel (Mr. Vanamamalai).3. Firstly, it was argued that the examination of the Public analyst of the sample in question revealed the result to the effect that the sample is artificially coloured by the addition of orange R.N., water soluble dye, derived from coal tar. The public analyst was of further opinion that as per clause A...
M.S. Venkataraman and ors. Vs. V. Nataraja Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ58
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. These appeals under the Letters Patent raise a question of limitation. The final decree in the suit for partition was made on 25th February, 1957, and it was amended by a further order dated 25th July, 1958. Under Clause (3) of the final decree the appellants were entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of plaint schedule items 5 and 6 which were in deposit in Court. They were similarly declared by the final decree to be entitled to a moiety of the sale proceeds of item 8 covered by Clause (4) of the final decree. This amount was also in Court deposit. In October, 1963 the appellants took out an execution petition for payment out of a sum of Rs. 4,639-6-0 out of the moneys lying in deposit. This sum had been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first defendant towards mesne profits from January, 1943 to November, 1951. The question was whether this application was in time. The executing Court decided the question in favour of the appellants,, but...
Basheer Bivi Vs. Z. Kuchelar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ218
S. Maharajan, J.1. Babjan, the son of the appellant, had appeared for the S.S.L.C. examination at Tiruchirapalli and was enjoying the summer holidays when he died on 30th May, 1955, as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident. The boy was cycling in a westerly direction along the Tiruchy Thanjavur road, at about 2-30 p.m., on that day, when the car of the first respondent, who is the Chief Technical Officer in the Tiruverumbur Heavy Boiler Unit, struck him and knocked him down. The injured boy was taken by the first respondent to the hospital, where he died the same night. The appellant filed an application as legal representative of the deceased before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the loss sustained by her as a result of her son's death. The New India Insurance Company, which had insured the first respondent's vehicle, was impleaded as the second respondent.2. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »