Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-04-1977
Reported in : (1978)1MLJ109
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., Writ Petitions Nos. 3437, 5667, 5732, 7181 and 6963 of 1975 and Writ Petitions Nos. 793 and 795 of 1976, in each of which the petitioner is either firm or an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling varnish within the territorial limits of Tamil Nadu under licences issued in pursuance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Denatured Spirit, Methyl Alcohol and Varnish (French Polish) Rules, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Rules) which were framed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred on him by, inter alia, the provisions of Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (here in after referred to as the Act). In the year 1970, Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 9 of the Rules was amended so as to consist of two clauses which read thus:(vii)(a) Security.-In the Case of applications for a licence in Forms D.L. 1, D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-07-1977
Reported in : (1977)ILLJ161Mad
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order dated 30th July, 1976 made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras-5 (first respondent) in Lay-Off Application No 2 of 1916.2. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner is engaged in engineering industry and has among others, a plant called Plant No. II at Sembiam, Madras-11.3. Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act) was enacted by the Parliament called the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act of 1976 Central Act 32 of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). One of the sections introduced by the Amendment Act was Section 25M. The broad feature of Section 25M was that it required an establishment covered by the new Chapter V (B) within which the establishment should apply for permission to effect lay-off of its workmen when such lay-off was due to shortage of power or natural calamities. By Sub-section (2) of Section 25M it was provided where workmen of such establishmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-07-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ2040
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner, the accused in C. C. 21 of 1974 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, has preferred this revision petition challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in C. A. 104 of 1974 on his file, confirming the conviction Under Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week, passed by the trial Magistrate.2. The crux of the indictment as per the prosecution case is that the petitioner on 18-4-1974 at 9 a. m. was found to have been in possession of 19 brass plates weighing 57 kilograms, all worth Rupees 1,500/-, suspected to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained and for possession of which he had failed to satisfactorily account. The prosecution examined two witnesses besides marking Ex. P-1, mahazar dated 18-4-1974, and the material objects M. Os....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-04-1977
Reported in : [1977]110ITR655(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandyan, J.1. The first accused in C,C. No. 4445 of 1973 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, has preferred this revision petition against the order of the said Magistrate in Crl. M.P. No. 481-A/73 dated November 28, 1973, praying that the said order may be set aside. The petitioner-accused has also filed another petition in Crl. M.P. No. 4813 of 1976 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 4445 of 1973.2. The petitioner-accused had filed a petition under Section 432 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, raising certain preliminary objections and praying for the dismissal of the complaint on legal grounds or, in the alternative, to refer the questions raised in the said petition for decision by the High Court. The learned Magistrate, after fully hearing the counsel for the respective parties, dismissed the petition by overruling all the objections raised and holding that the complaint should be proceeded i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-22-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ469
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. Both the revision cases have been preferred by one and the same person, the former against an ex parte order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent, the latter against an order of maintenance passed after contest. The respondent herein is the illegitimate minor son of the petitioner. His mother, one Mangammal, filed a petition Under Section 125 (1) (b), Cr.PC 1973, for grant of maintenance to him. The averment of the mother was that the petitioner had neglected the child and failed to provide maintenance for it. The principal defence in the case was that on account of a maintenance decree, passed by a Civil Court, in favour of the minor son, an independent application Under Section 125 (1) (b), Cr.PC was not maintainable, The objection wag not sustained and the learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. That order is challenged by the petitioner in these revision cases.2. Since the ex parte order of maintena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-23-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Mad386
1. In these petitions the validity of certain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, under S. 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with S. 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government under S. 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Natarajan J. as per S. 392 Crl. P. C. Before him it was urged by the State f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-23-1977
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1708
Ramanujam, J.1. In these petitions the validity of cerain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, Under Section 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government Under Section 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Nalarajan J. as per Section 392 Cri. P. C. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ116
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. The interesting, though knotty, questions raised for consideration in this petition are (1) whether the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Madras, is a 'person aggrieved by the offence' as envisaged Under Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and (2) whether a Court is entitled to take cognizance of offence Under Sections 3 and 7 read with Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in exercise of its powers Under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), after having first taken on file a complaint by the Registrar, without considering the question of limitation. These questions have come to be raised in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner who is working in the Corporation of Madras as an Ayah, was conducting a Chit Fund for Rs. 1,000/-. One of the subscribers reported to the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-1977
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1847
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 16th day of March, Wednesday the 30th day of March, Friday, the 1st day of April 1977 upon perusing the petition and the order of the Lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. V. Sankaran, for Messrs N. T. Vanamamalai G. Krishnan and M. Dhanasekaran, Advocates for the petitioners and of Mr. I. Subramaniam Advocate for the first respondent and of Mr. A. Packiaraj, for the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State, and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order:Some members of the B Party, viz., Nos. 1 to 12, 14, 16 to 22 and 24 to 51, in M. C. No. 45 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1, Tirunelveli, have preferred this revision to assail an order passed under Section 146 (1-B) Cr. P.C. in favour of the A party (the first respondent herein) in respect of certain lands situate at Velar-kulam vil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Mad310; (1977)1MLJ182
1. Thiru M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, is the petitioner in the criminal revision case as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition. The revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge appointed under S. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, disposing of Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 in C. C. No. 27 of 1976. The prayer in Cri. M. P. No. 2384 of 1976 was to discharge the petitioner under S. 239 of the Cri. P. C., 1973. By the order sought to be revised the prayer was refused. Cri. M. P. No. 429 of 1977 purports to be under S. 482 of the Cri. P. C., 1973, and the prayer therein is that the proceedings of the Special Judge in C. C. No. 27 of 1976 on his file be quashed.2. The arguments advanced in the revision as well as in the criminal miscellaneous petition were the same and the revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The Acts with which we are concerned are the I.P.C., th...
Tag this Judgment!