Chennai Court February 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.
Ramaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad297
1. These are two connected appeals. A. S. 604 of 1963 is by the claimants and A. S. 139 of 1964 is by the State against the same judgment of the District Judge, Coimbatore in A. C. 1 of 1960 on his file. 49.51 acres of land belonging to the claimants in Kannampalayam village. Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District, had been acquired by the Government on 23-7-1958 for running a State Seed Farm under S. 8(1) (b) of the Madras Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1956. The Collector of Coimbatore classified the lands acquired into two groups for purposes of valuation. 32.73 acres out of the area acquired were treated as garden lands and the remaining 16.78 acres were treated as rain-fed dry lands. He fixed the value of the garden lands at Rs. 2632 per acre and the value of the dry lands at Rs. 445 per acre. As the owners did not accept the said valuation by the Collector, the matter was referred to the District Judge, Coimbatore, who was appointed Arbitrator under the p...
In Re: Elumalai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ313
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The two appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate convicting them for offences under Rule 5 of the Madras Rationing Order, 1965, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, appeal against their conviction.2. The Charge against them reads as follows:First :--That you on or about 12th day of August, 1966, at about 11 : 10 p.m. that you Accused 1 being the lorry driver and that you accused 2 being the cleaner and that you accused 3 being the owner, stored 61 bags of Sooji at No. 173, Anna Pillai Street, Madras, without valid permit required under the Madras Rationing Order, 1965, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the Madras Rationing Order 1965, read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.And I hereby direct that you be tried before me on the said charges.It is apparently seen that the gravamen of the charge is that accused 1 and 2 being the lorry driver and the cleaner stored 61 b...
In Re: Manicka Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad491; 1970CriLJ1590; (1970)2MLJ380
K.N. Mudaliar, J.1. In this appeal accused 1 and 2 who are the appellants herein are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt on two grounds principally which will be set down by me presently. Briefly the facts are:2. P.W. 1 employed as an Assistant Manager in Spens and Co., General Paters Road, was going along Buzullah Road, T. Nagar at about 5-40 p.m. He found accused 1 and 2 standing on the road in front of Thiru N. T. Rama Rao's bungalow. Accused 1 called him and pointing to accused 2 asked him if he liked her. Accused 2 was very attractively and glamorously dressed and made up. Accused 1 told P.W. 1 that if he paid him Rs. 25 he could have sexual intercourse with accused 2. P.W. 1 was taken aback, so he says. Accused 2 took his hand and spoke endearingly to him and asked him to pay her Rs. 25 and have sexual Intercourse with her. She also pointed out to a house nearby and told him that it was hers and pointed to the currency notes visible in his Terylene shirt pocket. He claims h...
M.K. Subramania Pillai Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC260(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is without any substance. One Subramania Pillai, who claims that he was an agriculturist owning about nine acres of nanja lands, was assessed on the best of judgment formula on the ground that he was a dealer in foodgrains, and by the order of the assessing authority, a turnover of rupees one lakh was brought to tax and the consequential penalty was imposed. In fact, the best judgment assessment was invoked because of the recovery of certain incriminating slips from the assessee when he was in a third party's rice mill which was being searched at or about that time. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee was successful; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without examining the incriminating material, but after hearing the representative of the assessee as also the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Detection) who was responsible for the seizure of the slips and after discussing with the assessing authority, reversed the ...
The Workmen Employed in Ennore Foundries Ltd. Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ222Mad
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The dismissal of five workmen and the suspension of another ten workmen employed in the Ennore Foundries Ltd, Ennore. gave rise to an industrial dispute, which was referred to the adjudication of the Labour Court, Madras, by the Government in G.O.R. No. 749, Industries, Labour and Housing dated April 25, 1967. The dispute with reference to the suspension of the ten workmen, after the filing of the claim and counter, was settled out of court and a joint memorandum to that effect was filed before the Labour Court on December 6, 1967. Consequently, the Labour Court had to deal with the reference relating to the dismissal of five workmen, namely, P.A. Verghese, P.S. Mani, A. Doss, Mohanram and Devasahayam. By an award made by the Labour Court on June 14, 1968, it came to the conclusion that the circumstances indicated that the dismissal of Verghese was more a case of victimisation than a case of trying to enforce discipline in the interests of the industry. It was also of...
M.K. Subramaniam Pillai Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ270
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is without any substance. One Subramania Pillai, who claims that he was an agriculturist owning about nine acres of nanja lands, was assessed on the best of judgment formula on the ground that he was a dealer in foodgrains, and by the order of the assessing authority, a turnover of one lakh was brought to tax and the consequential penalty was imposed. In fact, the best judgment assessment was invoked because of the recovery of certain incriminating slips from the assessee when he was in a third party's rice mill which was being searched at or about that time. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by the assessee was successful; the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, without examining the incriminating material, but after hearing the representative of the assessee as also the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Detection) who was responsible for the seizure of the slips and after discussing with the assessing authority, reversed the or...
Balammal Vs. Phk. S. Muthuswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1970
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ427
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Balammal, the first defendant in O.S. No. 14 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur, is the appellant in this second appeal. She is the owner of Chinna Mavadi and Mudal Karai lands lying to the east of Peria Mavadi lands obtained by the first respondent-plaintiff under the settlement deed, the original of Exhibit A-2 from Lakshmi Ammal, the co-widow of the first defendant. There is a channel NC running between Peria Mavadi lands and Chinna Mavadi lands as shown in the Commissioner's plan and it irrigates both these lands. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that whenever he cultivates plantain crops on the plaint A Schedule Peria Mavadi lands, he is entitled to drain off the surplus water from the said lands, into the plaint B schedule Chinna Mavadi lands, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his exercising the said right by putting up an earthenware pipe at the point M underneath the bed of ...
The Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. Vs. the Board of Revenue (Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: [1970]25STC469(Mad)
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question before us is whether notwithstanding the fact that Section 37 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, provides for limitation of sixty days from the date of the order of the Board of Revenue for preferring an appeal, this court can, by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, excuse the delay in filing the appeal provided it finds there is sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.2. The answer to the question will depend on the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. If it does, Section 5 of the Act does enable this court, if it is satisfied about sufficient cause for the delay, to excuse it. Had it not been for Vidyacharan v. Khubchand : [1964]6SCR129 , it would have been necessary to consider the question in some detail. But, in our view, the decision in that case seems to govern and dispose of the question in favour of the appellant. In that case an appeal from the Election Tribunal to the High Court...
T. Damodaran Vs. Sulochana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ219
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The civil Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chingleput, and it relates to the custody of a minor now aged 11 years. The appellant herein is the father and the respondent is his wife. He had married her on 16th September, 1957. When she was pregnant by three months, she went to her father's house. She gave birth to the child in December, 1958. Misunderstandings arose and ever since she is living in her mother's house with the child. The appellant filed O.P. No. 61 of 1958 for restitution of conjugal rights. She contended that she was very badly treated by her husband and that as such there was no ground for ordering restitution. Her contentions were accepted. The petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput. This decision was affirmed by the District Judge, in C.M.A. No. 7 of 1961. Exhibit B-2 is the certified copy of the judgment. During the pendency o these proceedings, the appel...
The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. S.K. Ramalingam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ288
M. Natesan, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of a suit for recovery of damages on a sale of goods through an irrevocable letter of credit. The plaintiff the first respondent in the two second appeals, is the buyer of the goods. The appellant in S.A. No. 1821 of 1964 the first defendant in. the suit, is the banker who issued the Letter of Credit and the appellant in S.A. No. 106 of 1965 the and defendant in the suit, is the seller. The plaintiff who had a permit for the purchase of brass scraps issued to him by the Government, placed an order with the 2nd defendant, a licensed importer of the controlled commodity at Calcutta, for the despatch of 7 tons 10 cwts. brass scraps from Calcutta to Kumbakonam. For payment, he applied to the first defendant-bank at its branch in Kumbakonam for opening a Letter of Credit in favour of the 2nd defendant with the consent of the latter. Under the terms of the Letter of Credit., the first defendant-bank at Calcutta is authorised to negotiate th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »