Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-08-1975
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ216
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. appeal arises under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Alagiriswami, J., who, concurring with the first appellate Court, dismissed the second appeal by the appellant who was the plaintiff. Her husband died intestate on 14th July, 1952. She was the second wife and had two sons by him. Years back, as a result of misunderstanding between her and her husband, the appellant instituted maintenance proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained a maintenance order. A suit brought by the husband to have that order cancelled, ended in a compromise which resulted in what we regard as a family settlement dated 24th December, 1930. The substance of this document was that the husband and his son by his first wife should take certain properties and live as joint Hindu family and the second wife and the two stons by her represented by their mother as guardian should take certain properties mentioned in the Schedule to the document and live as a separate famil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-22-1975
Reported in : AIR1975Mad395
ORDERRamanujam, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of a public carrier hearing MSV 9380. On 6-10-1974, three persons, Nagappa Naicker and Kumar, both of Nazarathpet and Manicka Mudaliar of Thirumalisai are said to have entrusted with the petitioner 80 bags of paddy and one bag of ragi for transport. from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet both of which are inside Sriperumbudur taluk in Cbingleput Dt. As there was no restriction on the movement of the goods from one place to another with-in the same taluk, the petitioner is said to have accepted the paddy and ragi entrusted to him for transport and the bags were loaded in his lorry MSV 9380. The lorry when it was proceeding from Edayarpakkam to Nazarethpet had been intercepted by the first respondent at Thinnnangalam and the entire 81 bags found in the lorry had been seized.2. The petitioner questions the validity of the said seizure on various grounds. Firstly he contends that no mahazar was pre-pared and no independent witnesses were called t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1975
Reported in : [1975]101ITR390(Mad)
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellants in C.As. Nos. 466 and 481 of 1972 are accused 1, A.D. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar and Company, accused 2, A.D. Jawaharlal Pandian, and accused 3, A.D. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar in C.C. Nos. 44986 and 40180 of 1969, on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. They were tried along with accused 4 to 9 for offences under the Income-tax Act, criminal conspiracy, etc., in both the cases and accused 4 to 9 were acquitted.C.A. No. 466 of 1972 (C.C. No. 44986 of 1969)2. In this case, accused 1 was convicted under charge No. 1 for an offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and accused 2 and 3 were convicted under charges Nos. 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under each conviction, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under each conviction. It was directed that if accused 1 failed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1466
ORDERRatnavelpandian, J.1. The petitioners herein are the wife and son of the respondent. They applied before the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem, for granting maintenance to them, in M. C. No. 25 of 1971, and the court on 5-7-1971, ordered that the respondent should pay maintenance amounts of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- per month to the first and second petitioners respectively. The respondent has been paying these amounts as ordered. At the time of the passing of the said order, the respondent was working as a temporary helper in the Mettur Aluminium Co, on a daily wage of Rs. 5.85. Not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners filed M C. No. 462 of 1973, before the same court, praying for enhancement of the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75 and Rs. 45 to the first and second petitioners respectively on the ground that the respondent has been absorbed on a permanent basis as a workshop assistant on a monthly salary of Rs. 310.60. The responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-1975
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1715
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner who is the accused before the V Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, in C. C. No. 12050 of 1973, has filed this revision petition, challenging the order of the staid Court, allowing the petition of the complainant for the recall of D.W. 1, the Salesman of the accused's firm under Section 540, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of filing the counterfoils of certain bills. The learned Assistant State Prosecutor has filed an application before the lower court on 28-2-1974, on behalf of the complainant, to recall D.W. 1 who had already been examined on 6-2-1974, for the purpose of marking certain bills in the bill book wherein Exs. P-2 and P-3 had already been marked. The said application was filed after the case was posted for judgment. It was resisted by the accused on various grounds. The learned Magistrate, allowed the application, observing as follows-Notwithstanding the fact that the present application for the recall of D.W. 1 has been made rather belated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-07-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1200
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The revision petitioner herein and another were accused of offences punishable under Section 61 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Excise Act (in C. C, No. 1911/1973 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Villupuram. The trial Court, after taking evidence in this case, found the petitioner and the other accused viz., one Lakshmanasha guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The prosecution case is that on 8-8-1973, at about 4.30 P. M. Shanmugam (P.W. 1), the Inspector of Police (Excise), Valavanur, checked the car bearing Registration No. MEQ 3051 at Kandamanga-lam check-post and found accused 1 sitting on the Driver's seat. The other accused viz. Lakshmanasha was by his side. The other persons viz., one Krishnaraju and one Shankar, who were also found sitting on the rear seats, were juveniles and therefore the case as against them was split up and tried separately in C. C. 2844 of 1973. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-07-1975
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ229
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This second appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant filed an execution petition before the learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the realisation of the amounts due under the decree by attachment and sale of the respondent's property. The amount claimed in the execution petition was Rs. 2,220-05P. The respondent (judgment-debtor) contended that the execution petition was not at all maintainable inasmuch as, in the prior execution petition, viz., E.P. No. 126 of 1972, the valuable plantain crops raised by him on an extent of 78 cents had been attached and put in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Court and the receiver had harvested the crop and sold the same, But had not put the sale proceeds into Court, but died after that, and in those circumstances, the decree-holder had to proceed only against the heirs of the receiver for realisation of the amount, and not by attachi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ157
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District-Magistrate (J) of Tirunelveli, in Crl. P: 7 of 1973 on his file, setting 1 aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shencottah, dismissing the complaint under S- 203, Criminal P.C. filed by the respondent complainant in C. C. No. 16 of 1973, against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 494 and 109. I. P. C, read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the allegation that the complainant is the lawfully wedded wife of accused 1 (first petitioner herein) and that while the said marriage between them is still subsisting, he married one Piramavee as his second wife and then he (accused 1) married accused 2 (second petitioner) about li years ago, as his third wife on the 12th of Ani, at 10 a- m. at Courtallara and that accused 3 to 11 abetted the commission of the said offence of bigami.2. The learned District Magistrate, on setting aside the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-25-1975
Reported in : 1976CriLJ598
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. Cri. M. P. No. 2841 of 1974 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, accused 1 to 4, 7, 9, 10 to 14, 17, 18, 20, for transfer of S. C. No. 67 of 1974 from the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Devakottai to the file of any other court of competent jurisdiction within the District or at Madurai. Cr. M. P. No. 3130 of 1974 has been filed to quash the order of the committal made In P.R.C. No. 3 of 1974 on the file of the Court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karaikudi.2. I shall first take up Cr. M. P. No. 3130 of 1974. This petition has been filed by the aforesaid accused to quash the committal proceedings on the main ground that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Karaikudi, has not followed the procedure laid down under new Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code') in cases of private complaints and, therefore, the committal; was illegal.3. The facts of the case are these: One Muthana Kone, the second respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-02-1975
Reported in : AIR1975Mad383; (1975)2MLJ171
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent filed R. C. O. P. 559 of 1971, on the file of the First Additional District Munsif (Kent Controller) Madurai, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in the payment of rents and on that ground, ordered eviction, giving the petitioner herein three months time for vacating the premises. Aggrieved by the decision of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein presented a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Subordinate Judge of Madurai. Since there was a delay of 16 days in preferring the said appeal against the order of eviction, the petitioner herein filed I. A. 353 of 1973 along with the said appeal, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Following the principles laid down by this court in the decision reported in Eswaran v. Palaniammal, 197...
Tag this Judgment!