Chennai Court July 1978 Judgments
In Re: R. Dayalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1852
ORDERPaul, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for sending one bottle of the M. Os. concerned in C. C. No. 17 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur to the Chemical Examiner, Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chepauk for analysis and report with regard to the nature of the contents of the bottle.2. The petitioners stand convicted by the learned Judicial Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hosur of an offence under Section 18 read with Section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. The aforesaid conviction and sentence was confirmed on appeal. The petitioners have thereupon filed a Criminal Revision Case before this Court. The facts are as follows : On 2-2-1975 P.W. 2 the Drugs Inspector of Dharmapuri inspected Sri Murugan Pharmacy at Hosur of which shop the first accused Chandriah Naidu was the proprietor and in which shop the second accused was an employee. Noticing that...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munuswami Goundar Vs. Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ67
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The second respondent in O.P. Nos. 23 and 24 of 1971 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant in both these appeals. There are two appeals because there were two persons in respect of whom compensation was claimed under the provisions of the relevant Act in two separate petitions.2. On 30th November, 1969, at about 1 P.M. the first respondent was driving lorry No. MDS. 8097 in Annavasal-Kudumiamalai Road. The lorry capsized and Perumal, the petitioner in O.P. No. 23 of 1971 sustained multiple injuries to his person and fracture of his right hand and left leg. He was removed to the Town Government Hospital, Pudukottai, and thereafter was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, for further treatment. He was permanently disabled partially. He is a married person and is one of the earning members of the family consisting of himself, his parents, brothers and sisters. At...
Tag this Judgment!The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Sub-collector Vs. Mut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ197
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the Judgment in O.P. No. 148 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, awarding enhanced compensation to the respondents in respect of the lands acquired -in Karuppur Village, Omalur Taluk. O.P. No. 148 of 1967 arises out of the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, (Sub-Collector, Mettur) in R.O.C. No. 4886 of 1966 (B2), dated 26th September, 1967 relating to serial No. 2 of award statement No. 1 of 1967, dated 15th March, 1967. Even though the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-Collector, Mettur) made mention that the claimants wanted enhanced compensation and referred the matter to the Subordinate Judge's Court, under Section 18 and Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act it is clear from the records that only claimants 1 and 2 questioned the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also raised a dispute with regard to the ownership of the land acquired by the Government. ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K.S. Gopalakrishna Chettiar and anr. Vs. N. Sankaramoorthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ225
S. Mohan, J.1. In these cases, the short question that arises for for determination is whether the respondents could claim the benefits of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1972 (Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972). In' order to appreciate this issue, the following facts may be noted.2. The respondents are cultivating tenants under one G. Pattammal, 1st appellant in C.M.S.A. No. 88 of 1975. Her husband, Gopalakrishna Chettiar, was collecting the rents for and on behalf of his wife Pattammal. For the arrears of rent upto the end of fasli 1371, the tenant N. Sankaramoorthy executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 600 on 1st May, 1962 in favour of Gopalakrishna Chettiar and for the two subsequent, faslis, he executed another promissory note in favour of the same person viz., Gopalakrishna Chettiar for a sum of Rs. 850 on 21st March, 1964. The said Gopalakrishna Chettiar filed O.S. No. 171 of 1967 and obtained an ex parte decree thereon. Under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Gounder Vs. Kannammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ167
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Kannammal obtained a decree against Arumugha Gounder in a suit on a promissory note in O.S. No. 977 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai. The decree was passed on 21st February, 1968 for Rs. 2,158-00 with further interest and costs. The decree-holder levied execution by proceeding against the immovable property of the judgment-debtor. The property was brought to sale on 13th June, 1973. One Shanmugham purchased it in the Court-auction for Rs. 1,751. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor had paid sums of money from time to time towards the decree, amounting in all to Rs. 2,100. The sale in favour of the auction-purchaser was yet to be confirmed, and at that stage, the judgment-debtor filed two applications before the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvannamalai. I.A. No. 1902 of 1973 was an application filed under Section 19 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act IV of 1938)?s amended by Act VIII of 1973 for scaling down the debt and f...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahiman Rowther, Son of Vapriya Khiya Rowther Vs. Komalathammal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ389
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the judgment-debtor under a decree. They arise out of application filed by him under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to declare that the ex parte decrees obtained against him by the decree-holder were null and void for want of territorial jurisdiction of the Court which passed the ex parte decrees. These applications of the judgment-debtor were dismissed. The appeals against the dismissal of the applications also shared a similar fate. The learned Subordinate Judge, passed a common judgment in the two appeals holding that the judgment-debtor was not entitled in the execution proceedings to raise a question of want of territorial jurisdiction in the Court which passed the decree.2. Mr. Krishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor in these appeals, submits that the suits against his client were on mortgages of immovable properties situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in whic...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramalingam Vs. S.C.S. Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ276
S. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the second appeal which has been preferred by the defendant are as under:2. Vacant site lying within Salem Town limits was leased out in favour of the defendant in 1959 under an oral agreement for the purpose of the lessee's motor workshop. The original period of lease expired on 31st December, 1963, and thereafter, the defendant is holding over. Inspite of the plaintiff's protests, the defendant has put up the superstructures in order that he could permanently squat on the property. On 4th May, 1970, the plaintiff sent a notice to the appellant herein by which he terminated the monthly lease and requested the tenant to surrender possession. In defence it was contended that the lease is not terminable as long as the defendant was paying rent and that was the basic term at the commencement of lease. During the various constructions, the plaintiff stood by. The defendant is entitled to purchase the suit site under the provisions of the City Tenants' Pr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Khaja Mohideen Vs. K. Muhaideen Batch and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad155; (1979)1MLJ112
1. In this second appeal a question of respondent judicata is raised in the following circumstances : There were two cross-suits between the same parties in the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. One was for injunction. The other was for possession. The injunction suit O. S. No. 629 of 1972 was filed by one Khaja Mohideen against three sons of a tailor called Khader Batcha. The suit for possession O. S. No. 413 of 1973, was filed, as a counterblast, by the sons of Khader Batcha against Khaja Mohideen. The subject matter of both the suits was a tailoring business run in the name of 'Star Tailoring Mart'. Khaja Mohideen claimed that this business exclusively belonged to him. Khader Batcha's son, on the contrary, said that Khaja Mohideen was only an erstwhile manager of the business. They claimed that they were the owners of the business by right of inheritance from their father. In his suit Khaja Mohideen asked that Khader Batcha's sons be restrained by a permanent injunction from inter...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Majumdar and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad246
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all these petitions are the same, they are dealt with together.2. As the facts in all the cases are substantially the same, it is enough if we deal with the facts in the first case, that is, W.P. 465 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 465 of 1978 is one Satish Mazumdar. who has adopted the affidavit filed by one N. S. Mani in W.Ps. 463 and 464 of 1978 which have already been disposed of by one of us on 9-2-1978. The petitioner in W.P. 465 of 1978 was a holder of liquor permit issued by the State of Tamil Nadu since September 1974 and that permit expired on 20-1-1978. On 3-2-1978, he applied for the renewal of the said permit in accordance with the Madras Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules 1960, hereinafter referred to as the rules, in the prescribed form. Just before the renewal application was filed, certain modifications were effected in the said rules by G. O. Ms. 3495 Home dated 31-12-1977 published on 1-1-1978. Rule 10(B)(1) of the Rule...
Tag this Judgment!V. Govindaswamy and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad91
1. This revision petition was initially heard by Nainar Sundaram J. but as the learned Judge did not agree with the view expressed by Mohan J. in C. R. P. 904 of 1974, which was relied on by the respondent, he referred the matter for an authoritative ruling of a Division Bench.2. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram, initiated proceedings for the fixation of the ceiling area of the petitioners herein who are husband and wife under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (Act 58 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 17 of 1970. The holdings held by each of the petitioners on the relevant date were as follows :Ordinary Acres Standard AcresV. Govindasami (husband) 12.79 1/2 7.13G. Gnanambal (wife) 26.48 1/2 15.0239.28 22.15In the draft statement issues under S. 10 (1) of the Act, it was proposed to declare an extent of 8. 03 ordinary acres equivalent to 5....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »