Chennai Court April 1979 Judgments
P.K. Moorthy Vs. Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ51
Paul, J.1. This criminal revision case has been posted before us on the orders of the Honourable Chief Justice on the suggestion of one of us (Maheswaran, J.) inasmuch as the question which arises for determination in this case is of considerable importance,2. The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an Offence punishable under Section 7(1) read with Sections 16(1)(a) and 2(i)(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was sentenced to R. I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on the ground that on 30-4-1976 at about 6 a.m. P.W. 1, a Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality visited the milk depot owned by the revision petitioner and he purchased 700 ml. of cow's milk for the purposes of analysis and sent one of the sample bottles to the Public Analyst who has given the opinion that the sample was adulterated inasmuch as it was deficient in solids-not-fat content to the extent o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ349
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Uthamapalayam dismissing, an application under Section 258 of t-the Code of Criminal procedure filed by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner contended that he is the President of V. Ammapatti Village Panchayat, that the act complained of against him, namely the removal of encroachment, was done in the discharge! of his official duty as President, that sanction is required under Section 169 of Act XXXV of 1958 and as no sanction was obtained the ; proceedings have to be stopped under Section 258 of the Criminal P. C. The learned Magistrate found that the first accused-President has Bought the eviction of the complainant through the officers of the 'Revenue Department and that notice had been served on Meenamhal, mother of Selvaraj, the Complainant, and that though a week's lime was granted, the first accused-President has removed the encroachment before the expi...
Tag this Judgment!The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. the Government of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ283
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The Life Insurance Corporation of. India is the petitioner herein. It acquired the assets of the South India Teachers' Union Protection Fund Limited, which included five buildings bearing Door Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in S.I.T.U. Colony, Raja Annamalaipuram four of which are residential buildings. At the time of acquisition respondents 2 to 6 who were not the employees of the Corporation, were occupying separate portions of the said residential buildings. Since the Corporation felt considerable need for providing residential houses for the occupation of its staff, it has been pursuading respondents 2 to 6 to give vacant possession of the portions of the premises in their occupation. When it could not get possession of the portions from them, it applied to the first respondent to exempt the premises Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 from the provisions of Section 10(3) of the said Act.2. The two grounds that were urged in suppor...
Tag this Judgment!The Balusserry Benefit Chit Fund (P.) Ltd. Vs. S. Sreenivasan Alias S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ286
A. Varadarjan, J.1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for records of the second respondent, vis., the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madras, relating to Claim Petition No. 290 of 1978 and quashing the order, dated 10th June, 1976 passed in that petition computing the benefits claimed by the first respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. The first respondent was working as a Clerk under the petitioner on a salary of Rs. 300 per mensum. According to the petitioner, there was an internal audit and it disclosed that the first respondent had misappropriated monies to the extent of Rs. 9,160.50 by making false entries and preparing false vouchers. According to the petitioner, when confronted with the internal audit report, the first respondent stayed away from work from 25th April, 1974. Thereupon, the petitioner called upon the...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.A. Abdul Rasheed Vs. A.M.A. Abdul Batcha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ341
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order made in C.M.A. No. 62 of 1976 by the District Court, East Thanjavur, which in turn confirmed the order made by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur in I.A. No. 1700 of 1974 in O.S. No. 291 of 1961. LA. No. 1700 of 1974 was filed under Section 19 of Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1938, as amended by Act VIII of 1973, to scale down the decree amount and amend the decree in O.S. No. 291 of 1961, as fully satisfied. It was claimed by the petitioners that they are agriculturists entitled to the benefit of the said Act and that their father, who is since dead, had mortgaged the property described in the plaint and obtained a lease-back arrangement by which he had agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 35 per month and continued, to be in possession of the suit property as a. tenant. Abdul Hajid Rowther, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein who was the second petitioner in the petition, usufructuarily mortgaged the suit property ...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Sayani Vs. Bright Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad162; (1980)1MLJ130
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Ismail, J. now reported in Bright Brothers Ltd. v. J. K. Sayani : AIR1976Mad55 . The plaintiff in O. S. No. 4905 of 1968, an the file of t he City Civil - Court, Madras, is the appellant before us. The plaintiff-appellant entered into an arrangement with the defendants respondents under which the plaintiff appellant became the sole selling agents of the respondents with regard to a specified area. It is admitted that the said arrangement did not prescribe any particular period during which the said agency should be in vogue. The plaintiff was purchasing the goods from the respondents from time to time as well as booking orders for the sale of the respondents' goods. A commission of 6.112 per cent was to be paid by the respondents to the appellant in respect of such dealings. An extra commission of 1.1/2 per cent was also provided for in certain circumstances. Under Ex. A. 44, dated 27-2-1964, though ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambujam Vs. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)IIMLJ570
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. In this appeal no steps having been taken for impleading the legal representatives of the second respondent, and as the second respondent is dead long before, learned counsel for the appellant frankly admits that he is unable to prosecute the appeal as against the second respondent. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as against the second respondent for non-prosecution.2. The first respondent is the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company taken over, after nationalisation, by the United India Fire and General Insurance Company. The material point which was considered by the learned judge, who negatived the objection of the owner of the taxi which was involved in the accident, revolved round a question of fact. It is common ground that at or about the time of the accident in which the appellant's taxi was involved, it was being driven by a person who was a learner and did not havean effective licence which alone would enable the person to drive a motor vehicle indepe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jaswant Singh Vs. A.R. Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ187
P. Venugopal, J.1. The civil revision petition is filed against the judgment, dated 20th March, 1976 of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in C.M.A. No. 24 of 1974 reversing the order dated 21st March, 1974 of the Rent Controller, Devakottai, made in H.R.C. No. 70 of 1971.2. The petitioner is the landlord. The tenant was one A.O.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar and the respondent before this Court is the L.R. of the said Arunachalam Chettiar. The petitioner purchased the building comprised in R.S. No. 39 from the original owner, Nagammai Achi who had already leased the building on the west. to Arunachalam Chettiar for a monthly rent of Rs. 100. The petitioner filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller contending; (a) the said Arunaehalam Chettiar denied his title and claimed as though the entire R.S. No. 39 was leased out to him; (b) the said Arunachalam Chettiar, besides committing acts of waste also committed wilful default; (c) the petitioner required the building for hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ambujam Vs. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ570
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. In this appeal no steps having been taken for impleading the legal representatives of the second respondent, and as the second respondent is dead long before, learned Counsel for the appellant frankly admits that he is unable to prosecute the appeal as against the second respondent. The appeal is therefore, dismissed as against the second respondent for non-prosecution.2. The first respondent is the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. taken over, after nationalisation, by the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. The material point which was considered by the learned Judge, who negatived the objection of the owner of the taxi which was involved in the accident. revolved round a question of fact. It is common ground that at or about the time of the accident in which the appellant's taxi was involved, it was being driven by a person who was a learner and did not have an effective licence which alone would enable the person to drive a motor vehicle independently...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Ramanatha Iyer Vs. Kondiah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad120
ORDER1. The Civil Revision Petition Is filed against the order dated 5-3-1976 in M. P. No - 224O of 1975 by IV Judge, Court of Causes, Madras. The petitioner, respondent in the lower court, is the land owner, the respondent, who is the petitioner before the lower court, is the tenant The Petitioner filed under, Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, ejectment suit No. 111 of 1968, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent filed M. P. NO. 3165 of 1968, under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, claiming protection under the said Act and offering to purchase the land in his occupation at a price to be fixed 'by the court. The court fixed the value of the land in occupation of the respondent at As. 1380, and directed him to pay the amount in thirty monthly instalments commencing from February 1972. The respondent paid the entire sum of Rupees 2731. In the meanwhile, the entire area of which the suit land forms part has been declared to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »