Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad97; (1953)2MLJ405
Mack, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pudukottah allowing an application by the judgment-debtors under Sections 47 and 151, Civil P. C. and holding that they were not liable to' pay interest of Rs. 2846-11-0 for the period 8-12-941 to31-3-1947 by virtue of the Accrual of Interest War time Adjustment Act (Burma Act 11 of 1947). The suit was one for recovery of monies deposited with the defendants in Burma admittedly many years ago. Section 3 of the Burma Act 11 of 1947 runs as follows:'Notwithstanding: anything contained in any other law for the time being in, force, or in any contract of loan or mortgage deed, no interest shall accrue, or be payable, upon any loan or mortgage other than usufructuary mortgage made in Burma before the 5th day of May 1942 for or in respect of the period which falls within the 8th day of December 1941 and the date on which the provisions of Section 7 of the, Courts '(Emergency Provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR991]; (1999)IILLJ1342Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated March 1982 and their subsequent letter dated January 11, 1989, the petitioner-Management has filed the above writ petition for quashing the same on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner company is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. According to them, there was some delay in the submission ofcontribution cards in respect of the periodsfrom September 1975 to September 1976,January 1977, September 1977, March 1978,September 1978, July 1979, September 1979and November 1979. The respondent issued ashow cause notice,No. T.N.INS.III.51-3142-74 dated August 18,1981 stating that they proposed to recover asum of Rs. 5,710.35 as the interest underRegulation 31(A) of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950 read with Section 97(2)(iii) of the Act. In addition to the above mentioned show cause notice, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. This appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram, made in S.C.No.253 of 2007 whereby these appellants, who were shown as A-1 and A-2 respectively, along with A-3 and A-4 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: ACCUSEDCHARGE FINDING PUNISHMENTA-1 & A-2302 IPCGuiltyLife imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-1 to A-3324 IPCGuilty2 years RI with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentenceA-1 & A-4294(b) IPCNot guilty AcquittedA-4323 IPC (2 counts)Guilty6 months SI with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentenceA-3 and A-4302 r/w 34 IPCGuiltyLife imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is a native of Mettupalayam Village. P.W.2 is his mother, while P.W.3 is his sister. The deceased Chinnathambi was the father of P.Ws.1 and 3 and the husband of P.W.2. There were landed properties, motor pump set and coco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, the respondent to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the petitioner premises bearing Door No.1, Plot No.323, measuring an extent of 3.88 Sq.Mts, Ambedkar Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai-61.O R D E R1. A slum dweller, who has paid the entire sale consideration for purchase of the plot, allotted to him, under the Madras Urban Development Project II promoted by the Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, has sought for a Mandamus, directing the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Chennai, the respondent herein, to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the premises bearing Door No.1, Plot No.323, measuring an extent of 3.88 Sq.Mts, Ambedkar Street, Karunanidhi Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai-61.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted the above plot, vide proceedings No.82/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in G.O.38 dated 27.03.2012 and to quash the same as illegal, incompetent, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional.O R D E R1. The petitioners, who are rice mill owners, have invoked the writ jurisdiction with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the notification issued vide G.O.38 dated 27.03.2012, being illegal, incompetent, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.2. The Director, Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Puducherry, entered into a statutory contract with the Millers for procurement of single boiled rice under Clause-3 of Puducherry Paddy and Rice Procurement (levy) Order 1996.3. The petitioners, under the contract, undertook to sell singled boiled rice to the Government at the rate acceptable to both the parties. The petitioners agreed to sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad58
(1) The two second appeals were referred to the Bench by Ramaswami J. and the civil revision petition was referred by Ramachandra Iyer J. in view of the conflict between the decisions inKishanlal Roopchand and Co. v. Indian Dominion, , and the Governor General in Council v. Ajit Bhai Jayantilal, . In the former case, Mack J. took the view that, in a case where a particular consignment of goods was carried over more than one railway, each railway administration should be treated as a separate entity and a separate juristic personality, and, though all the railways concerned were owned by the Government, a separate action notice under Sec. 77 of the Indian Railways Act should be given to each railway administration on the pain of the plaintiff failing to recover any compensation for loss of goods. In the other case Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. took the view that, in the case of loss of a consignment carried over two Government railways, notice under Sec. 77 given to one such railway which en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ239
T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein who is the first accused in Special Case No. 1 of 1998, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chenglepet, stands convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 131(1)(d) and the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.2, Neelamegam was the Deputy Manager of 'Futura Polymers Ltd.,' at No. 1-A, Kamarajar Salai, Chinnasekadu, Madras-68, P.W.4, Ramakrishnan was th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.9/1992 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC) Chidambaram has come forward with A.S.No.676/2002 as against the disallowed portion of her claim made in the plaint. The first defendant therein has filed A.S.No.857/2002 against the preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial court in the above said suit. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the suit.2. Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi, the plaintiff filed the original suit raising the following contentions:-Suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar. As he died on 20.10.1995 without leaving any Will, his daughter, namely the plaintiff and his son, namely the second defendant (Bala Ganesan) became entitled to the suit 'A' schedule property as the legal heirs of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidhar, each one being entitled to 1/2 share. The first defendant Raja Rathinam is the brother of Kalyanasabesa Deekshidha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Criminal Appeal Nos.814 of 2009 & 33 of 2010 filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.12.2009, made in C.C.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai.Criminal Appeal Nos.8 of 2010 & 40 of 2010 filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36-B of NDPS Act, 1985, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.12.2009, made in C.C.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai.C O M M O N J U D G M E N T1. The appeals are arising out the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.12.2009, made in C.C.No.55 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Special Court under N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai, whereby the accused 1 to 4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. Accused 1 to 4 were convicted for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1967Mad347
ORDER(1) Sri Alagiriswami, the first respondent, to this petition, was appointed an Additional Judge of this High Court on 8th August 1966, On the 11th August 1966, this petition seeking the issue of a quo warranto calling upon the first respondent to show under what authority he holds the office in question was filed. The petitioner is a member of the High Court Bar and has been a practitioner before this Court for the last 34 years. He claims that as a member of the Bar, he is vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and for reasons that would be apparent from what follows, he finds it to be his duty to move this Court in this matter.(2) According to the petitioner, Sri Alagiriswami does not possess the qualification prescribed by Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitutions. Secondly, it is contended that the appointment has been made virtually in the teeth of a Bench decision of this Court in which on an earlier occasion the property of the appointment of Sri Ala...
Tag this Judgment!