Chennai Court September 1952 Judgments
R. Kuppuswamy Gramani Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1957Mad23
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents and their officers from proceeding to act under the provisions of the Madias Revenue Recovery Act 2 of 1864 in respect of the rice mill belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner was a wholesale dealer under the Madras Rice Ration Scheme in Cholavaram firka for a period of one year from October 1949 to October 1950. During that period he became indebted to the Provincial Government in respect of rice, milo and wheat supplied to him in a sum of about Rs. 25000. The licence was not renewed for the year 1950-51. He alleged in the affidavit that he had paid over nearly. Rs. 11000. It is represented to me that the balance of the amount due to the Government was also paid off. If the debt had been discharged in full, the Government would no doubt drop the proceedings. But I shall proceed with this application on the basis of the allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Rangaswami and anr. Vs. the Industrial Tribunal, Fort St. George, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad447; (1953)IILLJ24Mad; (1953)IMLJ315
ORDERSubbarao, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a 'Writ of Certiprari' to quash the order of respondent 1 dated 24-9-1951. Petitioner 2 is the Liberator Ltd, represented by its Secretary. Petitioner 1 is an advocate. By G. O. No. 3167 dated 10-7-1951, the Government of 'Madras referred the industrial dispute between petitioner 2 and its employees to respondent, 1 the Tribunal constituted by respondent, 2 the State of Madras. On 11-9-1951, petitioner 1 sought to file his 'vakalat' on behalf of petitioner 2 before the Tribunal. The representative of the labourers objected to petitioner l appearing for petitioner 2. On 24-9-1951, afer hearing the parties, the Tribunal held, relying upon the provisions of section 36(4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that it had no power to grant leave to petitioner 1 to appear on behalf of the company, petitioner 2. Section 36(4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by the Industrial Disputes (Ap...
Tag this Judgment!G. Dwarakabai Vs. P. Nainan Mathews
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad800
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition by one Dr. Dwarakabai, M. B., B. S., aged 40, the Petitioner in O. M. S. No. 6 of 1951, a petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, P. Nainan Mathews, a Master of Arts and Bachelor of Laws, aged 58, on the ground of his adultery and desertion. Her previous petition, O. M. S. No. 34 of 1946 for divorce on the ground of his attempted sodomy on her and subsequent desertion had been dismissed by Clark J. and the dismissal confirmed by Rajamannar C. J. and Viswanatha Sastri J. in appeal in O. S. A. No. 73 of 1947. In O. M. S. No. 6 of 1951, a decree nisi was passed by me 'ex parte', on 8-4-1952, on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, Dr. Dwarakabai, and her witnesses. Normally, O. M. S. No. 6 of 1951 would have come up before me on 8-12-1952 for making the decree nisi absolute. But, meanwhile, the respondent, Nainan Mathews, is said, by this petitioner, to be contemplating filing a petition against making the decree n...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. O'Connor vs. P.G. Sampath Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad897; (1953)IIMLJ272
1. The applicant filed a suit on the original side of this court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6720 alleged to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of his mother. The defendant pleaded 'inter alia' that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the defendant was a permanent resident of Bangalore and the promissory note and the endorsements thereon were made outside the limits of the original jurisdiction of this court. Thereupon, the applicant took out an application praying that the plaint which he had filed should be returned to him. In the affidavit filed by him in support of the application he stated that in order to enable him to pursue his remedies it is necessary that an order should be made directing the return of the plaint to him and this court had jurisdiction to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court once it found it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The application came on before Panchapakesa Ayyar J. who ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kuppuswamy Gramani Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1952
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ185
ORDERSubba Rao, J1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents and their officers from, proceeding to act under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act (II of 1864) in respect of the rice mill belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner was a wholesale dealer under the Madras Rice Ration Scheme in Gholavaram firka for a period of one year from October, 1949 to October, 1950. During that period he became indebted to the Provincial Government in respect of rice, mile and wheat supplied to him in a sum of about Rs. 25,000. The licence was not renewed for the year 1950-51. He alleged in the affidavit that he had paid over nearly Rs. 11,000. It is represented to me that the balance of the amount due to the Government was also paid off. If the debt had been discharged in full, the Government would no doubt drop the proceedings. But I shall proceed with this application on the basis of the allegati...
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Shetty and ors. Vs. Parameshwari Alias Ujjakke Shedthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad100; (1952)IIMLJ932
1. This appeal relates only to the decree for costs. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They as the Junior members of an Aliyasanthana family sued to recover a sum of Rs. 15981 as the arrears of maintenance due to them. Defendant 1 is the present ejamanthi of the family. She filed a written statement showing that she was not in possession of the family properties or the incomefrom them though she became manager on 19-2-1948, and that therefore she had not been in a position to maintain the plaintiffs, or herself from out of the family income. Defendants 2 to 6 contestedthe suit and defendant 2 filed a written statement contending that the suit was filed in collusion with defendant 1 and to saddle the family with a large liability, that as the plaintiffs were living with defendant l who was maintaining them for the period during which the claim was made, the plaintiffs were not entitled to separate maintenance, that the claim for maintenance was excessive. Issues were framed. The first ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopalan Vs. the State of Madras by the Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad260; (1953)IMLJ29
Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this Appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Subba Rao J. dismissing the appellant's application for a writ of certiorari, the only ground taken is the invalidity of Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Second Amendment Act, 1951. That Act inserted a sub-section in Section 3 of the original Act and substituted a clause for a clause already existing in Section 4 of the principal Act and by Section 4 made provision for adjustment of rent paid by a ryot before the commencement of the amending Act. The excess was to be adjusted towards the rent payable by the ryot to the landholder for subsequent faslis. The ryot was in certain circumstances entitled to claim a refund of the amount remaining unadjusted from the landholder to whom it was paid.2. Mr. R. Kesaya Aiyangar contended that the Act is unconstitutional for two reasons:(1) because it was retrospective and to that extent was inconsistent with the provisions of Article 372(1) of the Constitution...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachala Naicken Vs. the Panchayat Board, Ethapur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad388; (1952)2MLJ776
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application to set aside the conviction by the Panchayat Court of Ethapur which has sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 5 for what the Panchayat Court calls that he made a hubbub alter refusing to answer the question put by the Court and chat he asked the other accused also to refuse to answer. It is clear from the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Salem, before whom this accused preferred a revision petition, that, when some of the accused ware present on a particular day of the hearing, the Panchayat Court asked the accused to produce the other accused for hearing on the adjourned date, that the accused did not produce the other accused and that he was questioned. It is stated that he would not reply, and in my opinion, the accused was perfectly justified in not answering any question regarding his not producing the other accused. No Court has any jurisdiction to compel one accused to produce the other accused in the case. The Panch...
Tag this Judgment!The State Vs. Ex Major P.K. Swamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad451; (1953)IMLJ45
1. The two accused in the case were committed by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, to take their trial in the High Court Sessions, for offences under Section 120-B, I. p. c. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(c) of Act II of 1947 and Section 477 read with Section 34, I. P. C. The offences under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of Act II of 1947 and Section 477 I. P. C. are offences triable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The order of commitment was passed on 8-7-1952 and the High Court became seized of the case immediately after the order of committal was passed on that day.2. on 28-7-1952, that is 20 days after the said order of committal, Act 46 of 1952 was passed by the Parliament in and by which, among other things, the forum D for the trial of certain offences, one of which is the offence under Section 6(2) of Act 2 of 1947 was altered. Section 7 of the Act is as follows:"1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898...
Tag this Judgment!T. Vinayaka Mudaliar Vs. Mindala Pottiamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad432; (1952)2MLJ774
Mack, J.1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act raises for determination an interesting point which does not appear to have been specifically decided in any reported case. The appellant is one Vinayaka Mudaliar who claims to be by vocation a printer. He engaged one Munuswami a cooly, as a mason along with another Munuswami P. W. 2 to construct a house without engaging the services of any contractor. The former Munuswami died on 18-12-1948 as a result of being engulfed in earth. His widowed mother filed an application, it would appear, on 11-4-1950 for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner awarded her Rs. 2400 under Schedule IV negativing the contention of the employer that the deceased was not at the time of the accident a workman within the meaning of Section 2(1)(n) of the Act.2. According to P. W. 2 he and the deceased Munuswami were each paid Rs. 3 a day by the appellant who used to build houses and let them on rent. They had constructed o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »