Chennai Court August 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.
Gulab and Company and anr. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise (Preve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR581(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing such of those respondents who are in possession to return the sum of Rs. 2,38,000, seized from the second petitioner, Shahul Hameed. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are these : 2. On information laid before the Inspector of Central Excise, Customs (Preventive), Trichy, that contraband gold was kept concealed in the premises at 3A, Estate Candy Street, Bheemanagar, Trichy, two inspectors of the Central Excise, Customs (Preventive) entered the said premises at or about 4-30 p.m. on November 1, 1972, arming themselves with an authorisation under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Superintendent of Central Excise also joined them a little later and the search was completed by about 9 p.m. A sum of Rs. 2,38,500 was found in an open almirah in the room. On the reasonable belief that out of the said sum of R...
Govind Singh and ors. Vs. A.S. Kailasam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad65
Natarajan, J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioners before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras (Court of Small Causes, Madras) are the applicants.2. One Heera Bai, the wife of the first appellant and mother of appellants 2 to 4, sustained a minor injury on her left foot on 4-6-1967 due to being knocked down by the first respondent's car. But unfortunately, she developed tetanus despite receiving medical attention at the Government Royapettah Hospital for the injury and died on 22-6-1967. The appellants alleged that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the car by the first respondent and claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000. The second respondent was impleaded a party as it happened to be the insurer of the vehicle.3. The first respondent resisted the claim and contended firstly, that the accident was not due to any negligence on his part, secondly, that the death of Heera Bai was not due to the injury sustained by her in the accident but due to novus actus inte...
State Vs. Savithiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: 1976CriLJ37
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the Public Prosecutor against the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Thanjavur for an offence under Section 120-B, I. P.C. (Part I). Accused 1 to 3 were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P.C. and were each sentenced to undergo imprivnment for life. The learned Sessions Judge also found accused 1 to 3 guilty of an offence punishable under S. 302 read with Section 109, Indian P. C, but did not impose any separate sentence in respect of that conviction. He found accused 1 to 3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120-B, I. P.C. (Part I) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The accused were also convicted of other charges, which need not be referred to.2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, a party to a criminal .conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for ...
N.K.S. Sankarakumara Nadar and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ12
Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli. The plaintiffs filed the suit in a representative capacity under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that a particular temple in their village, Sivagurunathapuram, belongs exclusively to the community of the plaintiffs residing in that village, namely, Hindu Nadars, and that it is a denominational temple within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution of India. The suit was necessitated by the fact that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (defendant in the suit) was trying to interfere with the management of the temple by the plaintiffs and was seeking to appoint some trustees. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant is not entitled to interfere with their management and they seek the necessary declaration and injunction.2. The defendant filed a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›