Chennai Court May 1947 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. Oor Goundan Alias Sommalai Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-28-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Mad242; (1947)2MLJ427
Shahabuddin, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No. 73 of 1946 in the Court of Session, Salem Division. The charge against the accused was that on or about the 1st May, 1946, they intentionally caused the death of Aran alias Arumuga Padayachi in furtherance of their common intention to kill him. On the evening of the 4th May, the corpse of the deceased Aran was found in the river bed close to the village of Porasalapatti. The head had been severed and it was found at some distance from the trunk. Information of this occurrence was given by P.W. 4 to P.W. 5, the Village Munsiff, and the post mortem examination disclosed an incised injury on the abdomen and another in front of the left armpit. In the opinion of the doctor these injuries could have been caused with a knife like M.O. 1 which was recovered as a result of a statement made by the first accused to the police. The part of this statement marked by t...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, T.S.T. Co., Ltd. Vs. R. Perumal Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1947
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ345
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The meaning of the expression ''wages' as used in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and particularly in Section 15 of that enactment is the only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition.2. The petitioner is a managing director of an establishment conducting a transport business. The 1st respondent Perumal Naidu was employed in this establishment as a driver, in which post he was confirmed with effect from 1st May, 1953. The pay of this driver was then fixed on the scale of Rs. 40/2/60 per month with a dear-ness allowance of Rs. 28 and a house rent allowance of Rs. 5, a month. At the time of his confirmation, his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 42 on this time-scale. It would be seen that this employee was entitled to annual increments but the petitioner did not give effect to this contract and pleaded financial stringency in execuse. The workman thereupon preferred an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act to the Commissioner for Wor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›