Chennai Court February 1976 Judgments
In Re: Balagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1978
Paul, J.1. The appellant Balagopal stands convicted by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Madras Division of offences punishable under two counts of Section 302, I.P.C. for having on 14-1-1971 at about 12.15 P. M. at his house in the I. C. F. Colony committed the murders of his wife Padmavathy and his son Prasob by cutting them with a knife and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under each count.2. The appellant joined the Integral Coach Factory as a Peon and after some years of service he was promoted as materials clerk. He married Padmavathy, the only daughter of P.W. 16. The appellant and his wife were living at door No, 166/5, I. C. F. Colony. Padmavathy went to the house of her mother P.W. 16 for her second confinement,' leaving her husband Balagopal at 'Madras. Subsequently after the birth of the second child, the appellant went to Tellichery to the house of his mother-in-law P.W. 16, stayed there for a week and returned with his wife and the child to Madras....
Tag this Judgment!Thirumathi Maira Arokkia Ammal and anr. Vs. S. Singarayar Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ42
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendants 1 and 2 who tailed in both the Courts below, are the appellants. The first defendant is the mother of the second defendant. The respondent and the first defendant's husband Anthonymuthu Pillai are brothers. They are the sons of one Savarimuthu Pillai, who died on 5th March, 1942.2. The respondent filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property, which is the eastern half of S.No. 272/3 of Thottanuthu Village, Dindigul Taluk, and for recovery of possession thereof with future mesne profits. His case was that the suit property and other properties were the joint family properties of himself and Anthonymuthu and they got those properties partitioned under the unregistered document, Exhibit A-2, dated 23rd April, 1964 and he got the suit property for his share in that partition and has since then been in enjoyment of the suit property and has acquired title by prescription. He alleged that the appellants interfered with his possession and...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindrajulu Vs. M. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ406
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein, who is the landlord, filed an eviction petition, under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960. The respondent here in averred in the eviction petition that he has no other residential house in the City of Madras, that he filed an eviction petition against all the tenants in the premises including the respondent, that the eviction petition against the tenant herein, was dismissed as the tenant claimed to be entitled to the protection under Section 10(4)(i) of the Act, that the landlord then moved the Government under Section 29 of the Act and got exemption with regard to the benefit of Section 10(4)(i) of the Act and that since the tenant did not vacate, the landlord, after giving lawyer's notice, filed the eviction petition. The landlord has further averred that since he wanted the whole of the premises for his own occupation, ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Shukur Vs. K.E. Sundara Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ332
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who failed in both the Courts below, is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and recovery of possession thereof and a half share of the casuarina crop raised by the respondents, on the suit properties alleged to have been leased to the' 1st respondent or its value of Rs. 3,ooo.2. The suit properties are 3 items of lands, viz., 1 acre 71 cents comprised in S. No. 97/1 said to correspond to Paimash No. 248/D forming item 1; 5 acres 50 cents of land comprised in S. No. 88/2 said to correspond to Paimash Nos. 221 and 365 forming item 2; and specific 13 acres 79 bents out Of 44 acres 13 cents comprised in Paimash Nos. 233, 250/A, 25O/B, 251, 252/B, 253, 255/B, 257/A, 257/B, 257/C and 264 of Karungali Village, Ponneri Taluk, Chingleput District, which was originally a zamin estate and taken over by the Government on 3rd January, 1951 under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition; and Conversion into R...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuammal and anr. Vs. the Secy. Kolathur Blacksmithy and Carpentry W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad70
ORDER1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one deceased the Kolathur Blacksmithy and Carpentry Workers' Industrial Co-operative Society Limited, Kolathur, Mettur Taluk, Salem District till 31-8-1969 when he was removed from that Office From the audit report for the period from 1-4-1966 to 31-3-1969 it was found that there has been a deficit in the stocks of various articles to the extent of about Rs. 5,946-19. The Society filed an arbitration case for the recovery of the said amount of Rupees 5,946-19 being the value of the stock found short, under Section 73(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). While the said arbitration case was pending, the said Ramalingam died on 8-11-1970. Taking note of his death, the arbitrator dismissed the claim of the Society on 12-11-1970 on the ground that the claim has obtained and that it is for the Society to file a fresh claim against the legal representatives.2. The Society took the matter...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanamuthu Vs. Most Rev. JustIn Diraviam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1976
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ358
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from one Miss. Stazza on 26th January, 1970. At that time the defendant was in occupation of the property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25. The plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the property and as he did not do so, a registered notice was sent to him. But it was returned with the endorsement 'Not found'. The plaintiff thereafter sent a telegram on 30th July, 1970 running as follows:The portion issued to you by Stazza has been purchased by me. You have not received the registered notice sent to you, You have to vacate the portion in your occupation by the end of August, 1970. Justin Diraviam.The defendant received the telegram, but did not vacate the property. It was stated in the plaint that the plot was a vacant piece of land, which is not controlled by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960. Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Sugar Mills Ltd., Delhi Vs. Ganga Bishen Bhajan Singh and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad178
1. The defendant in O. S. Nos. 628, 656 and 663 of 1667 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore has preferred these appeals.2. The defendant Messrs. Kamala Sugar Mills Ltd., are manufacturers of starch flour and liquid glucose. The plaintiff who was interested in the said goods entered into five contracts in December, 1964 with the agent of the defendant at Delhi. The contracts are exhibited as Exs. A-l, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5. Ex. A-l is dated 3-12-1964 which was for the supply of one wagon (220 bags) of starch flour at Rs. 42.50 per 50 K. Gms. Exs. A-2 and A-3 dated 8-12-1964 were each for the supply of 2 wagons of starch flour (here there is no further description as to the quantity of bags) at Rs. 42.50 P. per 50 K. Gms. Exs. A-4 dated 17-12-1964 is another contract for the supply of two wagons of starch flour (here the descriptive content of each wagon is given as 200 bags) at Rs. 45/- per 50 K. Gms. The fifth contract is under Ex. A-5 dated 26-12-1964. This...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ganga Bishen Bhajan Singh and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ149
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The defendant in O.S. Nos. 628, 656 and 663 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Goimbatore has preferred these appeals. 2. The defendant Messrs Kamala Sugar Mills Limited, are manufacturers of starch flour and liquid glucose. The plaintiff who was interested in the said goods entered into five contracts in December, 1964 with the agent of the defendant at Delhi. The contracts are exhibited as Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5. Exhibit A-1 is dated 3rd December, 1964 which was for the supply of one wagon (220 bags) of starch flour at Rs. 42.50 per 50 k.gms. Exhibits A-2 and A-3 dated 8th December, 1964 were each for the supply of 2 wagons of starch flour (here there is no further description as to the quantity of bags at Rs. 42.50P. per 50 K.gms. Exhibit A-4 dated 17th December, 1964 is another contract for the supply of two wagons of starch flour (here the descriptive content of each wagon is given as 200 bags) at Rs. 45 per 50 k.gms. T...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. the Madurantakam Co-operative Sugar Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC238(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees, a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,67,10,980.83 and Rs. 88,91,692.72 respectively for the assessment year 1968-69. They claimed exemption in respect of five items: (i) A turnover of Rs. 5,10,872.26 relating to the alleged incentive payment made to the cane-growers included as part of the purchase price ; (ii) A turnover of Rs. 92,729.14 relating to transport charges paid to the growers included in the purchase turnover of the cane ; (iii) A turnover relatirsg to sale of press-mud -- Rs. 7,315.80 ; (iv) A turnover of Rs. 16.84 relating to sale of bagasse ; and (v) A turnover of Rs. 4,17,422.45 relating to sugarcane standard mixture. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of exemption in respect of all the five items. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that only the sum of Rs. 5,10,872.26, the alleged payment of incentive bonus and the sum of Rs. 92,729.14, the t...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Suresh Electric Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ36
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The Official Assignee appeals from an order of Palaniswamy J., who dismissed his application for delivery to him of two machineries as belonging to the insolvent before his adjudication relying on the doctrine of reputed ownership under Section 52 (2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.2. The insolvent is one Raj Krishna Sharma. He was adjudicated on his own petition on 11th January, 1971. He had been carrying on business under the name and style of Raj Cable Industries, manufacturing and selling P.V.C. Cables and Wires. He had his business premises in Linghi Chetty Street and his factory at Kakalur, Tiruvellore Taluk. He purchased two machineries, one in December, 1967 for Rs. 14,935 and the other in December, 1969 for Rs. 26,162. They were both purchased from one Bharat Bhushan Sharma, said to be his son-in-law. The Official Assignee's application related to recovery of possession of these two-machines.3. The applicant was resisted by his son-in-law and also...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »