Chennai Court November 1972 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: Balan Alias Balusami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1311; (1974)2MLJ460
K. S. Venkataraman, J.1. Three persons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Salem in connection with the murder of one Palani Chetti. The first accused has been convicted of the offence Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of Palani Chetti by squeezing his testicles on 23rd February, 1972. The second accused has been convicted Under Section 109 and Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for abetting the offence of murder by pushing the said Palani Chetti on the ground and by catching hold of the legs of Palani Chetti to enable the first accused to squeeze his testicles. The third accused has been similarly convicted of the offence Under Section 109 and Section 302, Indian Penal Code of abetting the murder, by catching hold of the hands of Palani Chetti when A-1 squeezed his testicles. All the three have also been convicted Under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to death, subject to confirmation by this Court for the major offence Under Sec...
Shanmugha Udayar and anr. Vs. Govinda Udayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad127
ORDER1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in these revision petitions. They filed the suits for declaration and injunction. The question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the suits should be valued under Section 25(b) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, or under Section 40(1) of the Act. The plaintiffs purchased the suit property from the second defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 as well as one Ramachandran were the sons of one Peshkar Udayar. After the demise of Peshkar Udayar, Defendants 1 and 2 and Ramachandran effected a division in the properties into three shares in the year 1948. It is further alleged in the plain that there was a koorchit evidencing the partition among the brothers. One of the legal representatives of one of the brothers of defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and a preliminary decree was passed declaring the shares of the brothers and providing that as far as possible the properties should be divided as amongst th...
V.P. Thirunavukkarasu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ181
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore, in his proceedings No. A2-20883 of 1970, dated 23rd November, 1970 by which the petitioner, who was serving as Deputy Surveyor in the Survey Department, was reverted as Field Surveyor with immediate effect. The petitioner is a member of a Backward Class (Hindu Agamudayar). Prior to the formation of the Andhra Pradesh State, the petitioner was recruited for survey training on 16th May, 1951 by the Officer-in -charge, Chittoor. After training, he was appointed temporarily as Field Surveyor on 16th July, 1951 and he was taken in the permanent establishment with effect from 1st August, 1951, but his services were not regularised by the Andhra Pradesh Government after its formation. The petitioner was promoted by the Andhra Pradesh Government as Deputy Surveyor on 10th February, 1960. The petitioner applied to the Tamil Nadu Government to be t...
The Government of Madras by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Educat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ41
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeals by the State are from a common order of Kailasam, J., reported in The Hindu Bala Patasala, Chepauk, Madras-5 v. The Director of Public Instruction, Madras (1967) M.L.J. 138. He quashed as invalid G.O. Ms. No. 751, Education, dated 17th May, 1965. By that order, 'Government directed that with effect from the school year 1965-66 no fees of any sort should be levied from pupils attending any standard of a recognised primary or upper primary school under the management of any agency. In accordance with that direction the order of the Government substituted Rule 29-A in the rules for the grant of recognition and aid to elementary schools published with the then Education Department Notification No. 243, dated 21st August, 1939 and as subsequently amended by a new rule, which read:29-A. With effect from the school year 1965-66 no fee of any sort is leviable from pupils attending any standard of a recognised primary or upper primary school under the managemen...
Valliammal Vs. the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad321; (1973)1MLJ377
ORDER1. This is a petition to review the judgment, dated 6-1-1972, of Ganesan, J., in C. R. P. 916 of 1971, which was filed under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961.2. The petitioner, Velliammal is the wife of one Palanisami Gounder. The husband of the petitioner filed a Return in form II, as required under S. 8 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in which he had shown that he was in possession of an extent of 44-061 standard acres, after excluding the exempted lands. He had also shown that his wife, Valliammal, had inherited 11-075 standard acres on the death of her son on 25-3-1962. The husband of the petitioner claimed in that return that as per the Act, he was entitled to retain 30 standard acres as holding of the family and that his wife Valliammal, the petitioner herein, was entitled to hold 10 standard acres as Stridhana property. After issuing notices to the petitioner and her husband, the...
J.A. Abdul Hamid Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ311
K. Veeraswamy, C.J.1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are to restrain the respondent from taking any steps in pursuance of a seizure of 18 sovereigns On 27th January, 1969, from the premises No. 284/285, Main Road, Avanashi, Coimbatore, and for a direction to him to return the 18 sovereigns. On that day, about 9 A.M., on information, the respondent searched the business premises of J.A.M. & Co., at No. 284/285, Main Road, Avanashi. The party which searched, consisted of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Tiruppur, and other Officers. J.A.M. & Co., was a licensed gold dealer. About the same time, the residences of the partners of the firm were also searched with the authority of a warrant. Nothing incriminating was seized from the business premises. But, in the residential premises, 10 gold sovereings were recovered from Rahimat Begum, wife of Abdul Salam, one of the partner?, and 8 gold sovereigns from Tajun Begum, wife of Md. Sheriff, another partner. The ...
Govinda Chetti Vs. M.V. Chinnappa Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad400; (1973)2MLJ20
ORDER1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. He filed a suit for recovery of money. In the plaint he stated that on 1-4-1966 the defendant borrowed from him Rs. 2000. The defendant gave a chit stating that he had received Rs. 2000. In the evening it is alleged by the plaintiff that a promissory note was executed by the defendant for Rs. 2000. On 27-3-1969 the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and asked for the money or for an endorsement on the promissory note. It is stated that the defendant's son took the promissory note and tore it to pieces. In the plaint the relief that was sought for was for recovery of Rs. 2000 which had been received by the defendant on execution of the chit. In the column relating to the cause of action it is stated that the cause of action arose on the date when the defendant executed the chit for Rs. 2000 and in the evening when the executed a promissory note. In the amendment plaint the plaintiff sought to introduce a relief based on the promissory note ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›