Chennai Court November 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: Thangavelu Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ484
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Thangavelu Asari, the appellant herein, appeals against his conviction for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of his wife Dhanalakshmi on 16th January, 1969, at about 10 P.M.In our view, the best way of presenting the prosecution case would be to summarise the evidence of P.W. 2, the daughter of the appellant and Dhanalakshmi, the murdered victim. P.W. 2 Narasammal went to bed along with her parents on the night of 16th January, 1969, at about 10 P.M. She has two younger sisters and one younger brother. P.W. 2 woke up on hearing the sound of a passing bus. Then she saw her mother with blood coming from her chest. Her father Thangavelu Asari (the appellant) was sitting near the feet of his wife with a knife on his right hand. When P.W. 2 attempted to cry, the appellant appeased her saying that she need not get frightened and that he himself had stabbed her mother with the knife. The appellant laid his daughter P.W. 2 on ...
Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran Vs. V.P.V. Rajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ510
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals arise from a common order of Kunhamed Kutti, J. who agreeing with the Master dismissed the appeals of the common appellant and held that he was not entitled to sue as a pauper in the three cases. The appellant sought to recover damages from three newspapers, 'Navamani', 'Mail', and 'Thanthi' for alleged printing and publication, deliberately and maliciously, of false, libellous and defamatory news against him. He described himself as a journalist and averred that having regard to his position in life in society he had been damnified by the publication to a considerable extent, which he assessed at Rupees one lakh. The applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis were admittedly filed beyond the period of two years of the publication of the alleged defamatory matter in the newspapers, But the appellant in order to show that they were within the period of limitation of one year stated that one Sri Arunachalam wrote for and got copies from the respon...
Sha Jetmull Genmull Vs. Gocooldass Jamunadass and Co. Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ224
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The respondent-landlord applied for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from premises No. 13, Kasi Chetty Street, Madras-I, Under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that he had committed acts of waste which have impaired the value and utility of the building. It was the respondent's case that the petitioner has unauthorisedly and without the respondent's knowledge and consent demolished a portion of the roof in the first floor, removed the Burmah teak-wood rafters, planks, doors and windows, thus considerably damaging the old building, that a new staircase has been put up leading from the first floor to the second floor and that he had also loaded the beams of the ground floor by putting up a balcony in the first floor without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. By a notice, Exhibit P-3, dated 7th November, 1966 the respondent terminated the tenancy of the petitioner....
G. Gomathisankara Dikshithar Vs. the Assistant Collector, Cheranmahade ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad353; (1971)1MLJ328
1. The question in this case is whether notwithstanding that the Panchayat Union Council concerned came to an end by efflux of time, the appellant, who was nominated as a non-official member by the Township Committee for a term of five years. could continue his membership after the lifetime of the Panchayat Union Council. A reading of Section 12(1), 17(1) and 19 of the Madras Panchayats Act. 1958, makes it clear that the term of the appellant in the Panchayat Union Council terminated with the lifetime of the Council itself. Section 12(1) relates to the composition of the Panchayat Union Council. It should consist of the Presidents of all the Panchayats in the Panchayat Union and also one non-official member of each Township Committee in the Panchayat Union, and such a member has to be chosen in the prescribed manner. The appellant appears to have been chosen in August 1968, for a term of five years, but the term of the Council expired before the expiry of the term of five years. Sectio...
Saradambal Ammal Vs. A.M. Natesa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1970
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ244
Ganesan, J.1. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted in forma pauperis by the appellant Saradambal Ammal for a declaration of her title to the suit house and for recovery of possession of the same from the respondent-defendant, Thiru Natesa Mudaliar, with past and future profits.2. It is not disputed in appeal that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of one Mottayan, that the said Mottayan is still living and that she has two sons out of the said union. She was admittedly living as his permanent concubine, with the respondent in the latter's house from the year 1946; nor is it disputed that, on 16th May, 1951, the respondent settled the house on the appellant by means of a registered settlement, copy of which is Exhibit A-1 and that, subsequently on 5thji August, i960, a rectification deed styled as a release deed (registration copy I Exhibit A-3) was executed in her favour by the respondent as well as Thiru Palaniswami from whom they respondent had purchased the p...
State by Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Rangaraju Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1023
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur acquitting the accused-respondent, Rangaraju Chettiar (A. 1). In the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur the prosecution was launched against A-l and two others. A-l and A-2 are the partners of the grocery and general shop under the name and style of Gobi Krishna Stores at Puvalur P.W. 1, the Food Inspector went to the said shop to take food sample. Then A-3 was seated in the shop transacting the business. P.W. 1 asked A-3 whether he got any flour variety for samples. (A.I to A. 3 are all related to each other). A-3 said that he got Bengal gram flour, pea flour and rice flour. P.W. 1 demanded Bengal gram flour and pea flour for sample in the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 1 further served Ex. P. 1 notice on A-3 to take sample of pea flour for analysis He purchased 320 milligrams of pea flour on payment of 45 paise under Ex. P. 2 bill and Ex. P. 3 cash re...
In Re: V. Maraiappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1970
Reported in: 1971CriLJ868; (1971)IIMLJ80
Somasundaram, J.1. Mariappan, the appellant herein, stands convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Ra. 500, for an offence Under Section 42 (l) read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Bus bearing Registration No. MBS 9370 is a contract carriage registered in the name of one Muthuswamy. This bus was driven by the petitioner on 13.12.1968 as a stage oar. riage. This was detected by P.W. 1. the Reserve Sub.Inspector. The petitioner in defence stated that he did not receive any each from ' any passenger and that the member? of a tourist party alone were in this bus. Not accepting his defence, the learned Magistrate has convicted him as skated above The correct, ness of this conviction is now canvassed in this appeal.3. Murugesan (P.W. 2) who was in this bus on that day, has sworn that he paid Rs. 10 into the hands of the driver at the time when he got into the bus He has further sworn that the driver gave him a token and that this token was collected back when the but left the ...
Lodd Balamukundas Vs. K. Kothandapani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad422
1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 3295 of 1962 on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant before this court. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein under the following circumstances.The suit property belonged to one Lodd Mohanakrishna and the first respondent herein took the same on lease from him. In a partition entered into in the family the suit property was allotted to the appellant herein and after such allotment, the first respondent was paying rent to the appellant, herein. One of the clauses in the lease deed executed by the first respondent in favour of Lodd Mohanakrishna provided that if there had been default on the part of the tenant to pay the rent, the landlord was entitled to determine the tenancy and re-enter on the demised premises. Alleging that the first respondent herein had defaulted in the payment of rent, on 2-11-1962, the appellant issued notice terminating the tenancy and proposing to exercise his right...
K.S. Abdullah Vs. S. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ385
G. Ramanujam, J.1. As all the above three revisions are connected they are dealt with together. The respondent, who is the same in all the three revisions, filed three petitions for eviction of the petitioner, who is also the same in all the revisions, from three different portions of premises No. 1, Smith Road, Mount Road, Madras-2 on the grounds (1) that he bona fide required the premises for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction and (2) that the petitioner had denied the title of the landlord and that such denial was not bona fide. The tenant-petitioner resisted all the eviction petitions and stated that he is entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act, in respect of a portion of the premises wherein he had put up superstructure, that the request of the landlord for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide and that there has been no valid notice terminating the tenancy in his favour. He also alleged that the premises from wh...
Official Liquidator Vs. Bharatpur Princesses' Trust and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas978(Mad)
Palaniswamy, J. 1. This application taken out by the official liquidator, who is in charge ot the properties, assets, etc., of Messrs. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd., which is in liquidation, relates to a mortgage executed by the company in favour of Messrs. Bharatpur Princesses' Trust, Mysore, the first respondent herein (who may be hereafter referred for the sake of brevity as 'mortgagees').' The company had put up an incomplete construction in premises No. 19, Cathedral Road, Madras. For the purpose of completing the construction, the company, by a resolution dated 4th September, 1961, decided to borrow a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 from the mortgagees. Accordingly, a mortgage was executed on 19th April, 1962, stipulating certain terms which will be adverted to in greater detail presently. The rate of interest stipulated was 8 per cent. The sum of Rs. 3,50,000 was agreed to be paid in instalments. Rs. 75,000 was agreed to be paid after the execution and registration of the document. The bala...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »