Chennai Court April 1974 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.
Sambasivan and ors. Vs. Inspector of Railway Protection Force
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ36
ORDERK.N. Mudaliar, J.1. The four petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tirupathur, holding that the complaint filed by the Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Katpadi, for an offence under Section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, against them is legally competent. In order to appreciate the legal position involved in this revision petition, it is pertinent to recapitulate a few facts.2. The four petitioners were convicted by the Sub-Magistrate, II, Tirupattur, and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners appealed against the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate and the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) Vellore, acquitted the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, in Crl. Appeal No. 84 of 1972 on his file. But the learned District Magistrate suggested the advisability of filing a complaint agains...
The Managiri Village Panchayat, Represented by Its President, K.R. Pic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ107
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. A Corporation changed with the Municipal Government of the City of Madurai to be known as the Municipal Corporation of Madurai came into existence on 1st May, 1971 under provisions of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of this Act stated that the Government may, by notification, declare their intention (a) to exclude from the City any local area comprised therein, and defined in such Notification ; or (b) to include within the City and local area in the vicinity thereof and defined in such notification ; provided that no-cantonment shall be included within the city. Sub-section (5) of this section stated that any inhabitant of a local area in respect of which any such notification has; been published or any local authority affected by any such notification, or the Council of the Corporation desiring to object to anything therein contained, may submit the o...
P.L. Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1533
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The Magistrate First Class, Raipur, has framed a charge against the revision-petitioner that he on or about December 14, 1971, at Raipur, was found selling and exhibiting for sale at his shop, without displaying the price list, the following articles:(1) Razor blades of different varieties, viz. Erasmic, Swiss, Kohinoor. Ashok, Panama, Prince, Ribert, etc(2) Soaps of different varieties, viz., Mayo, Peers, Gold, Tata Special, Synthal, Jai, etc(3) Baby Food.(4) Torch cells of different varieties, viz., Ever Ready, Estrella. etc.,(5) Matches.(6) Hydrogenerated oil (Dalda).The further charge was that he sold a packet of 5 erasmic blades for 90 Paise, while the price fixed is 80 Paise. The charge is that this is in contravention of the M. P. Commodities Price Display Order. 1971, read with Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules and also in contravention of M. P. Essential Articles (Exhibition of Price and Distribution) Order, 1966 and Article 6 of the M. P. Food Stuffs...
Koneridoss Vs. N. Subbiah Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ252
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This revision petition is against the order in I.A. No. 282 of 1973 in O.S. No. 36 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam, which is an application under Order 22, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. One Seethammal filed the above suit for partition. There was a preliminary decree and a second appeal (S.A. No. 935 of 1969) against the preliminary decree was pending in this Court. The said Seethammal died. Koneridoss, the present revision petitioner who is the husband's sister's son of the above said Seethammal first got himself impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal in the second appeal (S.A. No. 935 of 1969). He had been so impleaded as the seventh respondent in that second appeal. At a later stage, Subbiah Naidu, the contesting respondent herein, filed a petition before this Court in the above second appeal for getting himself impleaded as the legal representative of Seethammal on the ground that Seethammal had left a registered wil...
Natarajan and ors. Vs. C. S. Loganathan (Deaceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1974
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ268a
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This suit is filed for the recovery of Rs. 88,400 together with interest at six per cent. per annum on Rs. 80,000 from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of realisation for the defendants.2. The plaintiffs entered into an agreement dated 6th March, 1967 with the first defendant (since dead) regarding the sale of 7000 Nos. of equity shares in the capital of the company called 'Nadukani Plantations Private Limited ' standing on that date in the names of the first defendant and one Thiru A.C. Murali and his family members. The plaintiffs paid Rs. 80,000 towards part payment of the total purchase amount on various dates, including the earnest money of Rs. 10,000 paid on 6th March, 1967. Since the contract fell through, the plaintiffs are suing the defendants to recover the amount paid. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and so his legal representatives have been brought on record as defendants 2 to 6 as per order of Court da...
Ramachandra Chettiar Vs. G.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ320
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Cuddalore, overruling the objections raised under Section 10 (5) of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the said order having been confirmed by the appellate Judge (Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore). The lands in question belonged to one G. M. Ramaswami Chettiar. He had, amongst other lands a half share in nine survey numbers. The said half share in all the nine items came to be sold in Court-auction and the revision petitioner herein purchased the same on 5th January, 1967. The total extent so purchased is 5.38 acres. He obtained the sale certificate on 18th March, 1967.2. The said Ramaswami Chettiar who has been impleaded as the first respondent in this revision petition had filed a return under the provisions of the Act and the Authorised Officer prepared the draft statement under Section 10 (1) of th...
The Palni Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam Through Its Office Bearer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ201
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The first petitioner in these writ petitions, viz., the Palni Muslim Dharmaparipalana Sangam, is functioning under a scheme framed by the Sub-Court of Dindigul in O.S. No. 29 of 1939 on 12 th April, 1940. Under the terms of the scheme the said Sangam is in management and administration of the wakf properties described in the schedule to the decree of the Sub-Court including certain educational institutions. The scheme makes elaborate provisions for the membership of the Sangam and the election of its President, Vice-President, Secretary and its Managing Committee. The fourth petitioner herein was admittedly the Secretary immediately prior to 17th April, 1973. On 18th April, 1973 the Superintendent of Wakfs, Madurai-9 sent a communication to the fourth petitioner herein who was the Secretary of the Sangam, stating that the Honourable Minister for Wakfs had requested Thiru M.A. Latheef, M.A., B.L., M.L.A. and Thiru Abdul Jabbar, M.L.A. to make an amicable settlemen...
O. Ramalingam and ors. Vs. the Director, Daily Thanthi, Madras and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad309
Natarajan, J.1. The defendants in O. S. No. 5497 of 1967 on the file of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Madras are the appellants.2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are respectively the Director and General Manager of the Newspaper publication, 'Daily Thanthi' came forward with an action alleging that by reason of a publication effected by the defendants in the issue of the Tamil daily 'Navamani' dated 4-2-1966 (to be read as 5-2-1966 in respect of moffussil areas), the defendants had defamed the plaintiffs and were therefore liable to pay damages. The third defendant is the publisher and proprietor of the Tamil daily 'Navamani' and defendants 1 and 2 are respectively the Editor and printer of the said daily. In the publication of 'Navamani' dated 4-2-1906 the, defendants caused a report to be published in the front page which, among other things, contained words to the effect that the employees of 'Daily Thanthi' were being victimised for their membership in trade unions and that the M...
T.C. Purushothaman and anr. Vs. D.V. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ246
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners and the respondents were partners in a business which was run under the name and style of 'Uma Trading Company.' Misunderstanding arose between them and their disputes were referred, under a specific arbitration agreement dated 20th October, 1965, to five individuals viz., Subramaniam Chettiar, Venugopal Chettiar, Mahalinga Mudaliar, Shanmughasundaram and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar. According to one of the Arbitrators, Venugopal Chettiar, who claimed to be the President of the Board of arbitrators the board entered upon the reference after accepting the arbitration agreement and the reference, and after several sittings in October, 1965 the final award was recorded on stamp paper.. It is not in dispute before me that the same was registered on 27th October, 1965, and was also minuted in the book kept by the arbitrators. The President of the board of arbitrators, after having thus completed the award, filed it into Court after giving notice ...
Misrimal Hansraj Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1617
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant Misrimal Hansraj was convicted under Section 185(b)(ii) of the Customs Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. In respect of the disposal of the alleged smuggled watches. (M. O. 1 series), no separate order was passed as, in the opinion of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, they have been already confiscated to the State by the Customs Authorities.3. The appellant is running a business in Watches and other fancy goods in the premises at No. 97, Narayana Mudali Lane, George Town, Madras under the name and style of Messrs. Sha Manmal Misrimal, a partnership firm consisting of the appellant and his two brothers.4. On 19-12,1968, P. W. 1 J. Rama Rao, Preventive Officer attached to the Customs House, Madras, searched the shop of the appellant in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and recovered from the shop, 221 wrist watches,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »