Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-12-1978
Reported in : (1979)1MLJ114
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This is a petition by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, dated 19th September, 1977 in Crl. M.P. No. 2382 of 1977 and for a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the petition filed by the prosecution for custody of A-4 and A-5 on merits.2. The facts are as follows : The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, who has filed the affidavit in support of this petition, arrested one Kannappan (A-1), one Somasundaram (A-2) and one Mariammal, wife of one Soundara Pandian (A-3) for having been found in unlawful possession of two battery cells belonging to the Railways, interrogated them and recorded the statements given by Kannappan and Somasundaram (A-1 and A-2, respectively), which statements implicated Soundara Pandian (A-4), and Thirupathy Nadar (A-5), who are the respondents herein. On the same day, the Inspector recovered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-1978
Reported in : AIR1980Mad66
1. The plaintiffs in 0. S. No. 17 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram are the appellants. There was one A. P. Mohammed Noohu, who carried on extensive business in Ceylon and acquired properties in India as well as Ceylon during his lifetime. He died on 1st April 1959. On 30th May 1956 prior to his undertaking the Haj pilgrimage, he executed a number of settlements in respect of the properties covered by 'A' schedule to the plaint in favour of his wives and children. He had married two wives ' The first plaintiff is the Indian wife and the first defendant is the Ceylonese wife. He has seven children by his Indian wife, who was also the first wife, and he has six children by his Ceylonese second wife. It is in favour of these two wives and children that the settlement deeds were executed on 30th May 1956.2. After Mohammed Noohu died on 1st April 1959, the plaintiffs filed a suit 0. S. No. 9 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-30-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ432
ORDERPaul, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Judical Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri dismissing the petition C. M. P. No. 3426/77 filed by the revision petitioner in P. R. C. No. 17 of 1977 praying that the approvers in the aforesaid murder case should be examined only by the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and not by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Dharmapuri to whom the case had been transferred by the orders of this Court or in the alternative without examining the approvers, the case should be committed to the Sessions Court.2. The revision petitioner is the widow of the deceased Palaniappan who was murdered on 24-6-1974 at about 10 P. M. A charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. II, Salem against the respondents for offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 34, 341 and 201 I. P. C. and under Section 3 (1) read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Eventually, the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-27-1978
Reported in : 1978CriLJ1856
ORDERPaul, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cri. P. C., for directing the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Porto Novo to treat the case C. C. No. 2421 of 1976 as a Preliminary Register Case.2. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Porto Novo against the respondents in which complaint he has alleged as follows : - On 26-7-1976 at about 7-15 a.m. the complainant and his brother Vadivelu were attacked by the third accused and his men with koduwal and with sticks etc. and injuries were caused to the complainant and his brother; whereupon the complainant went and reported the matter to the police who thereupon sent him and his brother to the hospital where they were treated till 6-8-1976 and on 8-8-1976 when the complainant was going to his doctor as he was having headache and was passing by the house of the third accused all the accused were standing in the front of the house and on seeing him accused 3, 5 and 6 dragged h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-15-1978
Reported in : 1979CriLJ428
ORDERPaul, J.1. This criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. Madras Division, setting aside an order passed by the learned Fourteenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, under Section 452, Cr.P.C. and directing the trial court to conduct a fresh enquiry.2. In C. C. No. 30791 of 1976 on the file of the court of the Fourteenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, one Mani was charge sheeted by the police for an offence under Section 380, I. P. C. on the allegation that on 25-11-1975, the accused committed theft of a double row gold chain weighing 5 1/2 sovereigns and a silver anklet weighing about. 80 grams belonging to one Govinda Achari. The prosecution case was that the accused was employed under the said Govinda Achari, the complainant to the police, but subsequently left his services, but again went back to his service and on the same night committed theft of the aforesaid articles and then went and sold the same to the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-15-1978
Reported in : AIR1979Mad14
ORDER1. In both these review petitions the Kodaikkanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., Madurai, is the petitioner O. P. No. 75 and 144 of 1968 are Motor Accidents Claims Petitions for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. On 3-9-1967 at about 5-30 p. m. between mile stones 274/4 and 274/5. In Madurai Dindigul road, there was a collision between bus MDU' 6991 belonging to the Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., and lorry MDA 1440 belonging to Srinivasa Roadways Ltd. As a result of that accident, one Sundaramurthi who was a professor and a person by name Saroja and others sustained injuries. The widow of Sundaramurthi, namely, one Thailambal and three others filed O. P. 75 of 1968 for compensation. Saroja also filed a petition O. P. 144 of 1968 for compensation.2. From the decision of the Tribunal appeals were taken in C. M. A. No. 262 and 263 of 1970 and this court found that the driver of the bus MDU 6991 belonging to the Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., was responsible for the accident by his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-25-1978
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ314Mad
ORDERPaul, J.1. Crl. M.P. No. 34 of 1978 has been filed under Section 482, Crl. P.C. praying this Court to direct the respondent-the Commissioner of Police by himself and through his officers to disperse and remove all the persons remaining unlawfully inside the premises of the Neo Ranga Vilas Hotel at No. 366-367, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras to enable the petitioner and his partners to have exclusive control and possession of the premises. Writ Petition No. 560 of 1978 is a petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondent-Commissioner of Police directing him to disperse the unlawful assembly in the aforesaid premises.2. The petitioner in both these petitions is one of the three partners who own and run a vegetarian restaurant in the name and style of Neo Ranga Vilas at No. 366-367, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras, which hotel has been running for the last several years. The aforesaid premises actually belonged to the L.I.C. of India, but the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-26-1978
Reported in : 1979CENCUS142D
ORDERSuryamurthy, J.1. Appeal under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 against the judgment of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai in C. Case No. 98 of 1974 on the 27th day of June, 1975.This appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the record of the evidence and proceedings before the said lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Ilias Ali for Mr. Habi-bullah Badsha the Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the State, the Appellant herein and the respondent (Accused No. 2) not appearing in person or by Advocate, the Court delivered the following Judgment:This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate of Kulitalai in C.C. No. 98 of 1974 on the file of his Court, convicting the accused (Respondent) under Section 135(ii) of the Customs Act and Section 85(H) of the Gold Control Act, and sentencing him on the first Court to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-22-1978
Reported in : (1980)1MLJ153
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The civil revision petition has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order in R.E.A. No. 157 of 1977 in R.E.P. No. 82 of 1974 in O.S.No. 19 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri.2. The first respondent Vadivel Mudaliar obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S.No. 19 of 1969. The decree was amended. After the amendment the decree-holder brought the properties to sale in execution of the decree. At the Court-auction sale held on 16th January, 1975, the second respondent purchased the property. On the date on which the Court-sale took place the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) (hereinafter called Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) was in force. Under Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1975 all further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3, in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist, not being proceedings for the a...
Tag this Judgment!