Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad333; 1956CriLJ751
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. These revisions are filed by the accused against his conviction and sentence in two cases arising under Ordinance 19 of 1944 called Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Ordinance, 1944.2. Clause 3 of that Ordinance provides that whoever is found or is proved to have been in possession of any article of railway stores, shall unless he proves that the article came into possession with him lawfully be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.3. In this case some belts belonging to the railway company were found in the possession of P. W. 3's brother, who is the owner of a rice mill at Karur. According to the prosecution, these belts were purchased by P. W 3 from the accused. The trial Magistrate, as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal accepted his evidence, as it was supported by the testimony of two other persons, P. Ws. 4 and 5.There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayers: Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC to review the order, dated 17.12.2012, passed by this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.1160 of 2009. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records in I.D.No.489/2004 dated 25.07.2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal.) Common Order 1. As the facts involved in both the Review Application and the Writ Petition are one and the same, both the Petitions are taken up for disposal by a common order. 2. The Management of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries filed the above Writ Petition seeking to quash the Award dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.489 of 2004. This Court, by an order dated 23.01.2009, granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the order passed in I.D.No.489 of 2004. While so, 13 members o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad855; (1938)2MLJ447
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Collector of Malabar dated 20th May, 1933, dismissing the appeal from the order of the Amin of Androth Island dated 12th March, 1933.2. It appears there was a petition filed by the Koyas of the Island against the petitioner and another person on the 12th March, 1933, bringing to the notice of the Amin that the petitioner, who is a Melacheri, had agreed to hire a boat and register the agreement of hire contrary to the long prevailing custom in the Island. The Koyas alleged that the new departure threatened by the petitioner was likely to cause great hardship to them and would give rise to grave disturbances. The prayer in the petition was:We therefore request that the Court may be pleased to cancel the agreement regarding the chartering of the odam and order that the Melache-ries should not sail with odams as owners of goods.3. It appears therefore that the application was made to the Court of the Amin with a view to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1994Mad252; (1994)IMLJ260
ORDERMishra, J. 1. The instant application by a retired Judge of this Court is sadly, but pointedly bringing into focus how the status of the constitutional functionaries such as the Judges of the High Court is viewed and how the High Court Judges are treated by the executive wing of the State of Tamil Nadu. Before the facts, we feel, and like to speak about how pre-Constitution and post-Constitution Judges of the High Courts in India have been treated by the Constitution and the law and how they stand in discharge of their constitutional functions.2. In pre-Constitution days a High Court Judge appointed under the Government of India Act, 1935 held a civil post under the Crown, but Section 253 thereof was not applied to him. When the Constitution of India came into force and India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic after breaking with the bonds of the Crown. Article 395 of the Constitution specifically repealed the Government of India Act and under Article 376, the Judges of a High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1944Mad285
ORDERLeach, C.J.14. Mr. Srinivasa Ayyangar has applied for a certificate under Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, on the ground that his argument with regard to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. He points to Section 292, Government of India Act, which provides for the continuance of the existing laws until altered or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, The Land Acquisition Act has not been repealed, but this does not prevent the Legislature passing the Defence of India Act, and there is difference between requisition and acquisition. We have already described the contention that the Land Acquisition Act stands in the way of requisition under the Defence of India Act, as an astonishing one and having heard the learned Advocate-General we are satisfied that the question is not one of interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, but even if it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad583; (1951)IMLJ174
ORDER1. The petitioner herein who is & graduate of the University of Cambridge and a Barrister-at-law, applies to this Court under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce him before this Court :and set him at liberty forthwith.2. According to the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that while he was residing permanently in 'Baibhuvan',Sandhurst Road, Bombay, he was arrested on 24-6-1950 by the Bombay Police at Kishori Court, Worli Sea Pace, Bombay, where he and his wife had been invited to stay for a day. No warrant was shown to him at the time of his arrest. He was taken to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, where a detention order of the same date was served on him. On 27-6-1950 one Mr. H. S. Bhat, an advocate of the Bombay High Court, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, stating that he had been instructed by the wife of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad261; 1959CriLJ731; (1958)IIMLJ123
1. These are two petitions for setting aside the orders of the Sessions Judge of Madras in Crl. M.P. Nos. 7 and 9 of 1957, on his file, transferring C. C. Nos. 96 and 2014 of 1957 from the file of the V Presidency Magistrate, Madras, to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for being tried and disposed of by himself or by some Magistrate named by him other than the V Presidency Magistrate, These petitions first came up for hearing before Somasundaram J. but, owing to an important constitutional question raised by the petitioners, viz, the alleged absence of jurisdiction in the Sessions Judge, Madras, to entertain transfer applications in respect of cases pending before the Presidency Magistrates of Madras, Somasundaram J. directed these two cases to be posted before a Bench. That is how these petitions have come before us.2. We may now state briefly the facts which are a bit tangled and go back to a period of more than a year and are necessary, according to Mr. Vaz, the learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1928Mad385; (1928)54MLJ263
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A question of some importance has been raised in this case by Mr. Devanathan. He contends that Order 33, Rules 10 and 11, Civil Procedure Code, do not apply to suits by paupers filed on the Original Side of the High Court. As this question must arise frequently, I have directed notice to the Government Solicitor and the learned Advocate-General has appeared and argued the point. To deal with this contention, it is necessary to examine several provisions of law. The broad question is, to what extent do the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction? Section 117 which occurs in Part IX provides that, save as provided in that Part or in Part X or in rules, the provisions of the Code shall apply to High Courts. Section 121 runs thus:The rules in the First Schedule shall have effect as if enacted in the body of this Code until annulled or altered in accordance with the provisions of this P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT214(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by Kanakraj, J., in W.P. No. 3870/96, dated 16-8-1996 : dismissing the writ petition which is filed for issuing a writ of Certicrarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed in proceedings No. O.S. 377/96, dated 18-3-1996 and to quash the same and further direct the respondents to release the weapons, and direct the payment of costs and punitive damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2. The order dated 18-3-1996 which is sought to be quashed is an order holding that the five fire arms brought by the appellant from London are not entitled to the benefit of the Customs Notification 146/94, that the value of the fire arms was Rs. 4,02,379/- and that the Fire Arms had been imported without valid import licence, in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 and was liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1992. A fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 116Ind.Cas.561
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. These are suits filed by the respective plaintiffs against the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, for a declaration that Madras Act I of 1925 is not valid and that the defendants have no right to act as a legally constituted Board and not entitled to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Board of Commissioners under the said Act, for an injunction restraining them from exercising all or any of the powers under the Act against the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.2. In some suits there is an alternative prayer that even if the Act is valid, it does not apply to the institutions referred to in those plaints.3. The grounds on which Madras Act I of 1925 is said to be invalid are set out in the plaints.4. After the institution of these suits, Madras Act II of 1927 was passed. This Act by Section 6 repealed the Hindu Religious Endowments Act I of 1925 and by Section 7 validated certain acts done under that Act.5. Section 7 r...
Tag this Judgment!