Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-06-1989
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ54
Bellie, J.1. The controversy in these two Letters Patent Appeals is as to the requirement of issue of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The two appeals arise out of one suit. To state a few facts of the case, according to the plaintiff -His Holiness Srivan Satagopa Sri Vedantha De-sika Yathindra Mahadesigan, 44th Jeer of Sri Abhobila Math - Hereditary Trustee of Vedantha Desikar Sannadhi within the precincts of Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, there is a shrine for Sri Vedantha Desikar inside the temple. It was an established usage to bring the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar along with other Achariafs and Alwars to the Sanctum Sanctorum of Lord Rahganatha in the temple on the days of Yugathi, Deepavali and Kanu, etc. with Vadakalai Paraphernalia, Patram, Vazhithirunamam, etc. Unfortunately disputes arose between Thenkalai and Vadakalai vaishnavites and in this regard there were criminal proceedings also and the Thenkalais obstructed taking the idol of Sri Ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1491
Janarthanam, J.1. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court, has come forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are : The accused and Kuppammal (since deceased) are husband and wife. They are residents of Pavalangudi village, ten k.m. away from Mangalampettai Police Station. The spouses were in good terms for about two years prior to the occurrence, which happened on 17-8-1983. The accused actually suspected the fidelity of his wife thereafter and this led to frequent quarrels between them. The accused even went to the extent of complaining about the fidelity of his wife, the deceased to P.W. 3, who in turn reprimanded the conduct of the deceased number of times, without any effect. 3. The deceased, on the morning of the occurrence, went to her fields for work. P.W. 4 is an adjoining landowner. He was also attending to certain agricultural operations in his field. The deceased was carrying on the weeding operations with an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-23-1989
Reported in : [1990]186ITR623(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Madras District Social Welfare Association, which is an association founded with the object of purifying public life and also exposing corrupt elements. This application seeks to implead the petitioner as a party respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988 pending in this court. In Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2854 of 1988, the first respondent is the petitioner and the second respondent is the respondent. The second respondent has filed a complaint against the first respondent before the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences, Egmore, Madras, alleging that the first respondent who had been granted a loan of Rs. 4,65,000 on April 17, 1986 by the A.I.A.D.M.K. party and admittedy received by her on April 18, 1986, violated Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, the contravention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1430
Janarthanam, J.1. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence has come forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are :- (i) The accused is a resident of Amarapoondi Melakottai village which is 12 k.m. away from Chatrapatti Police Station, Marikannan (since deceased) was also a resident of the same village. He was a tender child of seven years old. His father P.W. 1 is a gold smith. There is a soda factory in the village owned by P.W. 2. His father is P.W. 4. The soda factory is situate in the North-South Street P.Ws. 2 and 4 reside in a house situate on the west of the Street. The soda factory is also accommodated in some portion of the house. Opposite to the soda factory, there is the house of one Thirumalai Chettiar. There is a street lamp post situate 20 feet south of the house of P.W. 2. The deceased used to go and play with the children of P.W. 2. (ii) On the day of occurrence, namely, 2-4-1983, the deceased had been to the house of P.W. 2 as usual and took his food t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-1989
Reported in : I(1990)ACC507; 1990ACJ27; AIR1990Mad14
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The ownerand driver respectively of a motor cycle against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had passed an award, confirmed by this Court in appeal, have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Facts briefly are : On 6-3-1980 at 7.05 p. m. motor cycle bearing registration No. TMC 6883 which had formerly belonged to the third respondent herein and on the day of the accident had belonged to the first appellant, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the second appellant and dashed against the first respondent-claimant and caused him serious injuries. The first respondent filed O. P. 525 of 1980 under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.3. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the second appellant, but was due to the negligence of the first respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-23-1989
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ297
Padmini Jesuduri, J.1. The owner and driver respectively of a motor cycle against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had passed an award, confirmed by this Court in appeal, have preferred this Letters Patent appeal.2. Facts briefly are: on 6-3-1980 at 7-05 p.m., motor cycle bearing registration No. T.M.C. 6883 which had formerly belonged to the third respondent herein and on the day of the accident here belonged to the first appellant, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the second appellant and dashed against the first respondent claimant and caused him serious injuries. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 525 of 1980 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000.3. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the second appellant, but was due to the negligence of the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-1989
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ27
David Annoussamy, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9.11.1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No. 18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988. Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petition would lie only before that Court, the matter was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the Petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Court's jurisdiction in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1426
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 184 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai. 2. The Food Inspector attached to Tiruvannamalai Municipality, at 10.00 a.m. on 23-2-1984 inspected the premises at No. 3 Kammala Street, Tiruvannamalai where Gemini Tata Tea Dust was stored for sale. At that time A3 the Manager was present. A1 and A2 are partners and A4 is the selling agent and A5 is the manufacturer of Gemini Tata Tea Dust. During inspection the Food Inspector found that 150 cases of Gemini Tata Tea Dust were stored for sale in the premises. He verified the Bill issued by A4 to M/s. P.V.R.J. and Co-Tiruvannamalai. Besides, he also verified the label on the caskets. Such verification revealed the following defects :- (1) The label found on the casket did not specify batch Number and Code number, as required by Rule 32(e) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : (1989)ILLJ588Mad
Venkataswami, J.1. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench by one of us (Mohan, J, as His Lordship then was) is 'Whether a writ would lie against a Co-operative Society under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?' 2. This question seems to loom large for quite some time not only in this Court but in the other High Courts as well, as could be seen from the cases cited by the counsel on both sides. 3. Mr. M. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4124, 4154 and 4167 of 1986 and Mr. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 607 and 608 of 1984, have advanced main arguments inviting this Court to answer the question in the affirmative. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M. R. Narayanasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has advanced arguments inviting this Court to answer the questions in the negative. 5. Before giving our answer to the question referred to us, it will be fruitful to refer the cases cited on b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-31-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2559
Janarthanam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-8-1984 of the Court of Session, Madurai North Division at Dindigul in Sessions Case No. 64 of 1984. 2. It arises from these facts : (a) The scene village D. Kamakkapatti is within the limits of Devadanapatti Police Station. The occurrence took place on 28-9-1983 at about 9-30 a.m. One Muthiah (since deceased) is the son of one Karupa Thevar (who died on 4-8-1984 before commencement of the trial). P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 are his brothers. One Raju Thevar is their maternal uncle. Accused 1, 2 and 4 are his children. Accused 3 is their maternal uncle. (b) Raju Thevar borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500/- from P.W. 2 one year prior to the occurrence. Six months thereafter, P.W. 2 advanced a further sum of Rs. 650/- to him for the purchase of five cents of house site in Arasamarathukadu. Raju Thevar neither returned the amount borrowed not sold the house site to P.W. 2, in spite of his persistent demand in this regard. A day prior to...
Tag this Judgment!