Chennai Court February 1971 Judgments
Kamalammal Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1483
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. It is seen from the judgment that the complainant is the illegitimate daughter of Dhanabagyam. The accused Kamalammal and the complainant Meenakshiammal have litigated in Civil Courts for the title to and possession of the disputed property. The learned Ninth Presidency Magistrate notices in the judgment that P.W. 1 admitted that she had failed in the Civil Court. It is also seen from Ex. D. 1 the suit filed by the accused for the recovery of possession of the property in the occupation of the complainant was decreed in her favour on 28-18-1968. The learned Presidency Magistrate notices that although Civil Courts has given a finding in favour of the accused, it cannot be straightway held that the accused has come into occupation of the immoveable property unless she could show by evidence that after taking necessary legal process in execution of the decree following the judgment of the Civil Court, she had been inducted into possession of the immoveable proper...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Madras, Represented by Food Inspector Vs. K.K. Kunju Mo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ494
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate erred in overlooking the requirement of Rule 34 read with Rule 42 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. M.O. 2 does not really indicate a label on which the declaration as required by Rule 42 read with Rule 34 is made. Prima facie, it would appear that there is no misleading expression within the meaning of rule A. 08, Order 3. (coffee chicory mixtures) In fact, the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused was justified in contending that the said rule has been complied with fully; nor is any complaint made for the breach of the said rule by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The offence is highly technical and it savours of a mere technicality. But the requirements of law have got to be satisfied and therefore I am remanding the same for fresh enquiry or trial....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras by the Collector of Thanjavur Vs. K. Devaki Ammal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ249
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The State is the petitioner herein. One Karuppan Chettiar owned vast extent of land and the first respondent was his permanently kept concubine. Respondents 2 to 11 are the children of the first respondent herein through the said Karuppan Chettiar. Karuppan Chettiar had settled certain properties individually on his illegitimate children, respondents 2 to 11 by various settlement deeds long before the date of the commencement of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The first respondent was called upon by the Authorised Officer by a notice under Section 9(1) of the Act to submit a return under Section 8(1). She declined to file the return stating that herself and her children, respondents 2 to 11 cannot be considered to be a 'family' (as defined in Section 3(14) of the Act). To a further notice by the Authorised Officer under Section 9(2) the respondents 1 to 11 again contended before the Authorised. Officer that they being illegitimate children, will not come within the sc...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mariayayi Vs. the Union of India, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad488
1. The appellant herein is the petitioner in Claim petition No. 50 of 1965 before the Claims Commissioner, Southern Railway Madurai. The said claim was made by the petitioner as a dependant of one Michael, who lost his life while he was traveling in the ill-fated train which was washed away between Rameswaram and Dhanushkodi on the night of 22-12-1964. Her claim for compensation of Rs. 8,000 as arising out of the death of her husband was rejected by the Claims Commissioners on the ground that it has not been established that the deceased Michael was a bona fide passenger within the meaning of Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act and as such the petitioner as his dependant was not entitled to any compensation. The decision of the Claims Commissioner is challenged in this appeal.2. The petitioner's husband, the deceased Michael, was working as a Greaser in the ship 'Irwin' and his work spot was at Mandapam though his residential quarters were at Dhanuskodi. After his duty was over at ...
Tag this Judgment!Avadai Ammal and ors. Vs. K.L.S. Subburamier (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad485; (1971)IIMLJ289
1. The second appeal comes before us on a reference by Ismail, J. He considered that the point of limitation arising in this case in it covered by any authority, and should, therefore, be decided by a Division Bench.2. The plaintiff are the appellant who are the mortgagees. The mortgage was executed on 10th June 1948, by the third defendant in favour of one Nachiarammal, whose heirs are the appellants. On 10th September 1948, certain creditors of the mortgagor filed I. P. 37 of 1948 to adjudicate him as an insolvent. That petition was dismissed on 28th November 1948. But the appeal arising from that order was allowed on 24th October 1950. A revision therefrom failed, this court indicating, while disposing it of, that the appellants should be treated as secured creditors. The properties of the insolvent mortgagor having vested in him the Official Receiver on 10th July 1961, sold the property, subject to the mortgage in favour of the appellants. The suit to enforce the mortgage was laid ...
Tag this Judgment!N.L.N. Lakshman Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Jayarama Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad34; (1971)2MLJ292
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. They purchased the suit property on 15th December 1953 from the legal representatives of one Krishnaswami Pathar. The plaintiff in execution of a decree obtained against Krishnaswami Pathar purchased the very property on 8th February 1960. The defendants having obstructed and succeeded,a suit was brought to set aside the summary order. Both the courts below have concurred in finding that the sale in favour of the defendants was a fraudulent preference within the meaning of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. In coming to that decision they were largely influenced by Abdul Majid Lebbai v. Papathiammal, . They understood that decision as laying down the proposition that the test of fraudulent preference was to see whether the debtor retained with him any amount,however small,for his benefit,so that to that extent the creditors stood to be defeated. When the second appeal came before Alagiriswami J. in the first instance,he too perhaps tho...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalapathy Swami Temple Thunisara Medu Chidambaram Vs. Velu Pad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad467
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 358 of 1964, on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Chidambaram, is the appellant before this court. The plaintiff is a temple, and the suit was for recovery of Rs. 976, being arrears of rent, on the allegation that the respondent had agreed to pay an annual rent of 70 kalams of paddy and 62 bundles of straw. The respondent contended that there was no such agreement and that in any event he had paid the arrears of rent claimed. The learned District Munsif found that no such agreement as pleaded by the appellant was established, but came to the conclusion that the respondent was liable to pay 60 per cent of the gross produce by way of rent to the appellant. In this view, on the 28th September 1965, he decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 672,50. As against the judgment of the learned District Munsif, the appellant as well as the respondent preferred appeals to the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajagopal Transport (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ85
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is Sri Rajagopal Transports Private Ltd., Tiruchirapalli. For a considerable length of time, the disputes between the management and seven workmen thereto were not settled as is seen from the various proceedings that preceded the present writ petition. As early as in 1962, a reference Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was made, on the question whether the non employment of one V. Kumaraswami, a driver of the petitioner Management, was in order. The Labour Court was of the view that the non-employment was not justified and the petitioner had to come to this Court in W.P. No. 199 of 1963, questioning the propriety of the award passed by the Labour Court. The Union also filed a writ petition against the same award, and both came up for final disposal before Ramakrishnan, J., who quashed the same and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. While passing such an order of remit, the learned Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Srichand Gobindram Nagpal Vs. M. Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1400
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent is set down in paragraph 14 of the complaint petition. The relevant portion is extracted here below:Thereupon, the complainant and others told the Policeman and accused I to wait as R.N. Bhattad was expected to come home for lunch any moment. But the accused 1 created a row and insisted on the Policeman to affix the summons immediately saving 'My relatives accused 2 to 4 have told me that Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldoss Agencies are dishonest scoundrels who dishonestly make money by infringing other people's trade mark and have sent me with specific instructions to expose them and teach them a lesson. We Nagpals are determined to expose these dishonest scoundrels and I shall fully expose them-and see how they infringe my relative's. trade mark'. The complainant and others protested against the use of such. vulgar and defamatory language by accused....2. The relevant and material passage would indic...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajagopal Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1971
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ488
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is Sri Rajagopal Transports Private Limited, Tiruchirapalli. For a considerable length of time, the disputes between the Management and seven workmen thereto were not settled as is seen from the various proceedings that preceded the present writ petition. As early as in 1962, a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made, the question whether the non-employment of one V. Kumaraswami, a driver of the petitioner Management, was in order. The Labour Court was of the view that the non-employment was not justified and the petitioner had to come to this Court in Writ Petition No. 199 of 1963, questioning the propriety of the award passed by the Labour Court. The Union also filed a writ petition as against the same award, and both came up for final disposal before Ramakrishnan, J, who quashed the same and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. While passing such an order of remit, the lea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »