Chennai Court September 1952 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maragathammal Vs. Azimunnissa Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad92a; (1952)IIMLJ883
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent due to her under a rent deed executed in her favour on 17-11-1946 by the two defendants in the suit, father and daughter. Defendant 1, the father, admitted the claim, but defendant 2, the daughter, pleaded that she was living with her father jn the suit house from December 1946, that she was living in Vellore till December 1947, and that she vacated the house and went to Madras. The learned Small Cause Judge at Vellore held that defendant 2 also joined in the execution of the rental agreement. The position of defendant 2 was therefore that of a joint tenant along with defendant 1. But he held that defendant 2 was not liable for the rent, because she vacated the premises on or about 9-10-1947 and had intimated the fact to the plaintiff.2. The learned Judge was clearly in error.The fact that defendant 2 purported to vacatethe premises on 9-10-1947 would not avail herunless the plaintiff had been put in po...
C. Govindarajulu Naidu and Co. Vs. State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad116; (1952)2MLJ614
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. This petition raises substantial questions as to the interpretation of Article 286 of the Constitution. The petitioners are merchants carrying on business in the City of Madras as tanners and exporters of tanned hides and skins. This petition arises out of proceedings taken by the State of Madras under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for assessing the tax payable by the petitioners in respect of their dealings for the year 1950-51. The facts as stated before us by agreement of both the parties are that during this period the petitioners purchased 12,123 pieces of hides and sums from Messrs. Abdui Gani & Company, Dacca for a price of Rs. 1,04,595-4-6; 74,000 pieces from merchants in Calcutta and Cawn-pore for a price of Rs. 7,18,042-2-9; and 3,694 pieces locally for a price of Rs. 43,575-0-10, in all 89,81? pieces for a price of Rs. 8,66,212-8-1. During the same period the petitioners themselves directly exported to foreign countries 7,250 pieces on C.I.F. contr...
M.J. Jamal Mohideen Saheb and Co. Vs. the State of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad131
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The petitioners are a firm of merchants carrying on business as tanners in the City of Madras. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Division, by his order dated 28th February. 1952, determined the taxable turnover of the petitioners for the period 1st April, 1950, to 31st March, 1951, at Rs. 14,97,726-12-11 and the tax payable thereon was assessed at Rs. 23,401-15-8. After deducting a sum of Rs. 2,303-5-6 paid as advance tax, the balance payable by the petitioners was Rs. 21,098-10-2. Notice was issued to the petitioners in Form No. B-l calling upon them to pay the tax and stating that in case it was not paid within the time limited, it would be recovered as though it was an arrear of land revenue and that further the assessee would be also liable to be proceeded against under Section 15 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The petitioners have replied by taking out this writ challenging the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and further dispu...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K.C. Ayyappan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad337; (1953)IMLJ157
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. Crl.RC. Nos. 88 to 97, 99 to 105 and 108 of 1952: These are 18 connected criminal revision cases filed by the State against the convictions and sentences of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin, in C.C. No. 122 of 1951 etc.2. The following tabular statement gives the details of these Sales-tax cases from which these revisions are preferred:Sl. No.Crl. R. C, No.C. C. No.TaxYear ofConviction and Sentence.Rs.A.P.1.88/5212'/515795101946-47Rs. 200 fine2.89/52107/51501601945-46Rs. 50 on admission3.90/52104/51931134'Rs. 300 fine4.91/5293/5114400'Rs. 30 ' on admission5.92/5296/5136740'Rs. 100 fine6.93/5292/511750001946-47Rs. 150 '7.94/5290/511612122'Rs. 400 '8.95/5284/512639136'Rs. 300 '9.96/5272/5115071451947-48Rs. 80 ' balance of tax Rs. S27-15-9 directed to be paid.67914882715910.97/5268/5189679'Rs. 100 fine11.99/52162/51346241945-46Rs. 50 ' on admission12.100/52157/511746601947-48Rs. 140 ' balance of tax Rs. 526-7-6 to be paid.12191465267613.101/52156/511...
In Re: Pachiripalli Satyanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad534; (1953)IMLJ175
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in C. A. No. 30 of 1951, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence in C. C. No. 1046 of 1950, Sub Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. The facts are: The petitioner-accused before us was the Head Establishment Clerk, p. T. O's Office, Bengal-Nagpur Railway. He is an elderly man who is suffering from heart trouble and is also said, to be otherwise sickly. This accused has got a grown up son who has been examined as D. W. 4 in this case and that son's wife is one Jayalakshmi, who has not been examined. The accused and his son and daughter-in-law all lived in the same house and the evidence is that they are undivided and the accused is the tenant of that house. It is in these circumstances that the following incident took place. 3. P. W. 1 Sri G. N. Brahma, who is the Inspector of the Special Police Establishment of the Govern...
V. Krishnamurthy and anr. Vs. the Ceded District Auto Transport Co. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad321; (1953)IMLJ81
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother, Subba Rao J. setting aside the order of the Government and that of the Central Road Traffic Board and allowing Writ Petition No. 282 of 1951 to quash the orders. The only question, that was debated before him and now before us, is whether there was a right of appeal to the Central Road Traffic Board against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 31st August 1950 refusing to grant the application of the appellants to extend the route of the bus service from Atmakur to Velgode. The learned Judge held that the appeal was incompetent, that therefore the order of the Central Road Traffic Board extending the permit in favour of the appellants to Velgode was without jurisdiction, and that the order passed by the Government in the exercise of their revisional jurisdiction, confirming the order of the Central Road Traffic Board was also void. 2. In order to appreciate the contention ...
N.M. Shanmughasundaram Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Pillai and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad433; (1952)2MLJ890
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The appellants are the defendants in O. S. Nos. 165 of 1947 and 164 of 1947 and in S. C. S. Nos. 133, 187, 119 and 186 of 1947 filed in the District Munsif's Court, Erode. The plaintiffs in those suits were employed under the defendants as accountants, clerks, and cloth-holders in their cloth business. The common case of the plaintiffs in all the suits is that they were employed under the defendants, that their salary was fixed inclusive of bonus and that while the salary was being paid, the bonus has not been paid, in some cases fully and in some cases partially. The suits, therefore, were instituted for the recovery of the amount of the bonus, which remained unpaid. The defendants contended that there was no agreement to pay the plain-tiff's any bonus and as bonus depends upon one's sweet will and pleasure and it is a mere gift, no suit could be filed in respect of the same. They also pleaded bar of limitation to the suits. The lower Court passed decree in a...
J.D. Lobo Vs. Marajal Doggu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad424; (1952)2MLJ747
ORDERRaghava Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether a foreign promissory note duly stamped in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, is to be stamped again before the actual endorsement of the promissory note in favour of a person who thereafter files a suit on the promissory note. The view taken by the Court below is that under Section 19, Indian Stamp Act it is incumbent upon the first holder of the promissory note to affix a proper stamp to the promissory note, before its negotiation in favour of the present plaintiff. The suit in the Court below failed on this construction of Section 19, Indian Stamp Act.2. What Mr. Narayana Pai urges is that Section 19 does not provide that in the case of foreign instruments duly stamped in accordance with the Indian law, there must be a re-stamping of such instruments over again by virtue of Section 10, Indian Stamp Act. The point raised is one of first impression and there are no doubt considerations of leniency to the subject whic...
In Re: E.P. Arumugham Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad154; (1953)IILLJ20Mad; (1952)2MLJ730
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are criminal revision cases which have been filed against the convictions and sentences of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, in S. T. Nos. 1138 and 1141 of 1951 respectively.2. The facts are: The petitioners before us who were respectively accused in the lower court were running cigar factories in Tiruchirapalli town. There is no dispute that each of these businesses is employing only less than 20 workers and that the manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of Electric power. P. W. 1, the Assistant Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Tiruchirapalli, visited these places and noted certain contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act which need not detain us here. These petitioners Arumugham Pillai and Sundaram Filial were prosecuted for infraction of the provisions of the Factories Act. Each of them was fined Rs. 10 or in default to simple imprisonment for ten days.3. The point taken is that these business premises...
In Re: N. Sankaranarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad376; (1952)2MLJ857
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are two connected revision rises which have been filed against the convictions and sentences of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Kollegal, in C.C. Nos. 152 and 153 of 1951.2. The facts are: The area occupied by Kollegal in Coimbatore district is served by the Mysore railway. Kollegal itself has no railway station and Maddur is the nearest railway station. Therefore, an out-agency is working 'in Kollegal for the purpose of booking goods there for being sent to Maddur railway station. This out-agency at Kollegal has been taken by Royal Motor Service, Kollegal, through one Dr. Mahadevan. But it appears that it is managed by the petitioner before us who is stated to be a brother of that Dr. Mahadevan.3. This establishment in Kollegal wasvisited by the Assistant Inspector of Labour.Gobichettipalayam and he found that thisout-agency did not maintain a register ofwages for the persons employed in it, a register of employment in the prescribed formE or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »