Chennai Court March 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.
State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Rathinavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ354
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondent herein was convicted for an offence under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on his bond for Rs. 300/- with two sureties to be of good behaviour for a period one year by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trichirapalli. The State in this revision contends that Section 3 of the Act provides for a minimum sentence and that as such the Court below erred in releasing him under the Probation of Offenders Act.2. Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 states that unless for adequate reasons to be recorded in the judgment, the Court shall impose on, the person convicted under Section 3 a sentence for a minimum of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The question which arises for determination is as to whether despite the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonment with fine having been prescribed by the Legislature for...
M. Andi Ambalam Vs. P. Malaichami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ118
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner and the first respondent contested the election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from the Melur North Constituency, Madurai district, that took place on 7th March, 1971. The Returning Officer, fourth respondent, declared on 11th March, 1971, that the first respondent had been returned by a margin of 127 votes. The first respondent was said to have obtained 37,337 votes and the petitioner was said to have obtained 37,210 votes. There were 3,381 invalid votes. Before the result was announced, the petitioner asked for recounting of the votes from the eighth round, the total rounds being eleven. The Returning Officer passed an order for recounting of the invalid votes, but did not accede to the request for recounting from the eighth round. But subsequently he did not implement that order for recounting the invalid votes and declared the results. This petition was presented on 23rd April, 1971 under Sections 84 and 100 of the Representation of the...
A. Somasundaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad156
ORDER1. The Government assigned to the petitioner 77.47 standard acres, otherwise than under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, after the notified date. The question arises whether this assignment would come within the provision under Section 20 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Government have considered the Petitioner's case and granted patta outside the Abolition Act, by assignment.2. Section 20 of the Madras Act 58 of 1961 provides that if, as a result of any transfer of land either by sale, gift, exchange surrender, agreement, settlement or otherwise effected on or after the notified date, the extent of land held by the transferee exceeds the ceiling area, then the right, title or interest accrued in his favour by virtue of such transfer in the land in excess of the ceiling area shall, as a penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 7, be deemed to have been transferred to the Government with eff...
Karuppusamy Vs. A. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ33
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal directed by Karuppusami, the complainant-appellant against the order of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate (J.), Dindigul. acquitting 43 accused-respondents.2. The accusation against the accused is that they are all opposed to the complainant on his being appointed as the village munsif of Kalvelipatti and. in making such objections, they put in writing that the complainant was a rowdy and law-breaker and that he would give trouble to the public and such allegations against the complainant constituted defamation punishable under Section 500. I.P.C.3. The complainant-appellant is P.W. 1. Undoubtedly he is a man of status in his village, owning properties worth Rs. two lakhs. All the accused also belong to the same village.4. The first accused was the village munsif of that village and he was suspended. Therefore the office of village munsif fell vacant. P.W. 1 applied for appointment as village munsif on 1-6-1970 to the Tahsildar, Nilakkott...
Madras Dock Labour Board Vs. Manjini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ229
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Madras Dock Labour Board against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,500 (inclusive of costs) to Manjini, the respondent, under the following circumstances:2. The respondent was' working as a sub-pool Mazdoor No. 5191 in the Dock Labour Board. While he was oh duty on the deck of a ship on 5th October, 1966, he sustained injuries as a result of an accident. As he and other workmen were loading the ship with bundles of tobacco, it started raining, whereupon all the workmen were taken to the deck of the ship. As Manjini and three others were tying the tent to four rods in the deck, a gale started blowing. The four Workmen were catching hold of the four corners of the tarpaulin tent as it started whirling round. The other three let go the tent with the result that the: tarpaulin tent flung the respondent over a distance of 20 feet on the deck. He fell down on his ba...
Dr. A. Somasundaram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ308
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The Government assigned to the petitioner 77-47 standard acres, otherwise than under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, after the notified date. The question arises whether this assignment would come within the provision under Section 20 of the Madras Land Reforms. (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Government have considered, the petitioner's case and granted patta outside the Abolition Act, by assignment.2. Section 20 of the Madras Act LVIII of 1961, provides that if, as a result of any transfer of land either by sale, gift, exchange, surrender, agreement, settlement or otherwise effected on or after the notified date, the extent of land held by the transferee exceeds the ceiling area, then, the right, title or interest accrued, in his favour by virtue of such transfer in the land in excess of the ceiling area shall as a penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 7, be deemed to have been transferred t...
The Vanguard Investments Ltd., Madras Vs. the Indian Mutual General In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad147
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This is plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of Venkataraman, J., dismissing a suit for recovery of a certain amount under a policy of re-insurance issued by the respondent. The appellant a fire insurer and a limited company, had a branch in Colombo. A merchant in Colombo by name Liyanage insured with the appellant his electrical and motor goods against fire for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, for the period from 27-2-1951 to 26-2-1952. In its turn the appellant took a reinsurance policy with the respondent for the corresponding period, but the appellant covered only 30 per cent of the original risk. On 26-12-1951, the premises of Liyanage were gutted by fire, with the result a claim was preferred for the full amount under the policy of insurance. The Colombo courts eventually held that the appellant was liable. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 77,231.98 to Liyanage and bore its own costs.2. The suit is resisted by the appellant, (sic) (Respondent?) and, by an additional wr...
C.P. Janammal Vs. C.M. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad362
1. This second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage Ex. A-1 dated 29-6-1915. One Kuppuswami Iyengar usufructuarily mortgaged the suit property under Ex. A-1 to one Varadachariar, the defendant's father. In pursuance of the mortgage the said Varadachariar and after his death the defendant was in possession of the property. Kuppuswami Iyengar, the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiff's husband under a sale deed Ex. A-2 dated 20-3-1919. The plaintiff's husband however was adjudicated insolvent in I. P. 454 of 1929. The said adjudication was annulled under Ex. B-1 dated 17-8-1953, but the court directed the continuance of the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee. Subsequently the insolvent died and his wife has filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The plaintiff claimed that she and her predecessors-in-interest are agriculturists entitled to the benefit of Madras Act 4 of 1938 and tha...
Thakkadi Syed Mohamed Vs. Ahmed Fathumml and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad302
1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for partition, separate possession and for accounts. The first schedule and second schedule to the plaint are immovable properties and the third and the fourth schedules are moveable properties. The plaintiff claimed 38/240th share in the first and fourth schedules, 53/1440th share in the second schedule and one-fifth share in the third schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the first and second defendants. They are the children of one Thakkadi Ahmad Mohideen. According to the plaint, the first and fourth schedule properties belonged to Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. After his death, the plaintiff and first and second defendants inherited the same and were in joint and constructive possession. The deceased Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen left also one Thakkadi Mohammed Abubacker and Asini Beevi as his heirs, along with the plaintiff and the second defendant. Thakkadi Mohameed Abubacker died leavin...
C.P. Janammal Alias Janaki Ammal Vs. C.M. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ571
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal filed by the appellant-pla'ntiff arises out of a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage Exhibit A-1 dated 29th' June, igi5. One Kuppuswami Iyengar usufructuarily mortgaged the suit property under Exhibit A-1 to one Varadachana, the defendant's father. In pursuance of the mortgage the said Varadachariar and after his death the defendant was in possession of the property. Kuppuswami Iyengar, the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiff's husband under a sale deed Exhibit A-2 dated 20th March, 1919. The plaintiff's husband however was adjudicated insolvent in I.P. No. 454 of 1929. The said adjudication was annulled under Exhibit B-1 dated 17th August, 1953 but the Court directed the continuance of the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee. Subsequently the insolvent died and his wife has filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The plaintiff claimed that she and her predecessors-in-interest are agriculturists e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »