Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad377; (1954)ILLJ289Mad; (1953)2MLJ639
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The South Indian Bank Ltd., Tirunelveli, is the appellant in these appeals; the respondents were employed as clerks in the said bank. As a measure of retrenchment, the bank terminated the services of a number of employees including the respondents. Against this order, they appealed under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, XXXVI of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who held by his order dated 23-7-1951 that their discharge was not for a reasonable cause. The bank thereupon filed W. P. Nos. 296 to 298 of 1951 for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid order dated 23-7-1951, firstly on the ground that the provisions of the Act were discriminatory in character and, therefore, repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution and void; and secondly, on the ground that the order in question was erroneous and without jurisdiction. Subba Rao J. who heard the petitions held that the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad561
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision filed against the order of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Bhavani. The petitioner herein preferred two complaints against one N. Chidambaram Mudaliar, an inspector of Police before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, one complaint was made on 22-4-1950 and the other on 2-11-1950. Both were made before the same Sub Divisional Magistrate. In both the cases, Chidambaram Mudaliar, the Inspector of Police was discharged. The said Chidambaram Mudaliar thereafter moved the police to file a charge sheet against the petitioner herein under Section 47 of the Madras District Police Act a petition was, thereupon, filed in this court to quash those proceedings on the ground that complaint by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 195 (I) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code was necessary. The petition came on for hearing before Ramaswami J. who dismissed the petition but observed that that was not the stage when the High Court will interfe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad581; (1954)IMLJ299
ORDERChandra Reddy, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance, viz., whether money deposited by a judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 89 will enure only to the benefit of the decree-holder that brought the properties to sale in execution of his decree or available for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil P. C. The petitioner in this case, who obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 603 of 194S on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Guntur, brought certain properties of the judgment-debtor to sale and they were purchased by a third party. The judgment-debtor applied to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89 depositing five per cent, by way of solatium to be paid to the purchaser and the decree amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the proclamation of sale. The respondent herein, a decree-holder in O. S. No. 480 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ongole, who was executing his decree, applied for rateable distribution of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1956CriLJ1079
ORDERRamaswami, J.1.This is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the Additional Stationary Sub-Magistrate, El-lore, in C. C. No. 2160 of 1952 which was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Eluru in C. A. No. 104 of 1953.2. The facts lie in a brief compass: The criminal revision petitioner before us Venkatasubbayya was working as a godown keeper in Ellore Co-operative Stores. In this case there was a co-accused (second accused) who had been acquitted in the lower Court, He was the manager of the said stores. The stores has seven depots under its control. The criminal revision petitioner was in charge of the main depot. According to the bye-laws of the stores this petitioner should sell the stocks in his custody to the customers, supply stocks to the other depots, write bills for the sales made by him, credit the daily sale amount in chittas maintained by the manager and obtain a receipt from the manager on the next day after the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad239; (1953)IIMLJ495
1. Rather an intriguing question has arisen here by reason of the method adopted by the parties. There was an execution application registered as E. A. No. 1544 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif of Masulipatam. The learned District Munsif converted it into a suit by an order dated 15-11-1947 and numbered it as O. S. No. 13 of 1948. When that suit came up for hearing, it was found that the subject-matter of the suit exceeded the pecumary jurisdiction of the Muusif's Court and therefore he directed the return of the plaint to be presented to the proper Court. It was thereafter presented to the Sub-Court of Masulipatam; but the Subordinate Judge held that since it was a matter relating to execution, even though it was converted into a suit it was only the Court which has jurisdiction to execute the decree that can try this suit.On this finding following -- 'Ramanuja Naicker v. Soliappa Naicker', AIR 1931 Mad 270 (A) the learned Subordinate Judge directed the return of the plaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad406
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court in App. No. 698 of 1948. That appeal arose out of a, suit for partition instituted by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur. The present petitioner was the first defendant in the suit. His wife was the second defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he had been taken, in adoption by the defendants on 7th April 1932 and that as adopted son he was entitled to a half share in the family properties. On 6-7-1940 the first defendant had sold some of the suit properties to the second defendant under Ex. D-7 and settled other properties on her on 25-10-19.44 under Ex. D-10. The plaintiff contended that these deeds were not binding on him and that he was entitled to a half share in the properties comprised in those deeds. The defendants contested the suit on several grounds. They denied that they took the plaintiff in adoption. They contended that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1953)2MLJ669
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. Two points have been taken in this revision namely that in this case a prior Magistrate who passed a preliminary order did not take interim bonds though the police pressed for them and secondly that the new Magistrate had issued another preliminary order containing some more incidents against the very same counter-petitioners and on an application by the police has passed an order directing the petitioners herein to execute interim bonds for keeping the peace (Section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code). It is argued that these twin acts were without jurisdiction and against law. 2. These contentions are devoid of merits. It is open to the second Magistrate after fresh incidents come to his knowledge to issue a second order either by way of amendment or as supplementary order because in the actual enquiry which takes place the petitioners herein must have full knowledge of all the information against them, the preliminary order corresponds to a charge on a warrant ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad347; (1953)2MLJ549
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellant was restrained by an injunction not to deal with the proceeds of the harvesting of certain crops which he had harvested but before he received the order the Firka Supply Officer had already directed him to deliver the paddy to a mill at Kothapeta which he could not disobey. Therefore) according to him even though there was an injunction order preventing him from dealing with the paddy, he delivered the same three days later to the mill and received the price of Rs. 570. The lower court was inclined to hold that he had no justification to do so and directed him to deposit into court the sum of Rs. 570 and on his failure he would be arrested and committed to civil prison for detention for a period of one month. The appellant after depositing the money has preferred the appeal objecting to the order of the lower court directing the deposit of Rs. 570.2. We do not see any reason why the order of the lower court should not be upheld. An order of injunction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad431
Chandra Reddi, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge confirming that of the Subordinate Judge annulling an alienation, under Section 63 of the Provincial Insolvency Act evidenced by Ex. E dated 30th November 1941. The document was executed by one Tatareddi and his minor son represented by him, his brother Subba Reddi and the latter's minor son for an alleged consideration of Rs. 3,000 in favour of the respondent. Within a few months thereafter, Tatareddi was adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 2 of 1942. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Official Receiver to take steps for avoidance of this document under Section 53 of the provincial insolvency Act. As the latter refused to do so, he applied for and obtained permission of the court under Section 54-A of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Having thus obtained the leave of the court, the petitioner filed an application under Section 63 of the Act in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry for a decla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad543; (1954)IMLJ206
(1) This is a court fee reference by the Master. R. M. Seshadri filed C. S. No. 541 of 1949 on the Original Side of this court for a declaration that the order of the defendant (State of Madras dated 7th August 1947 terminating his service as a member of the Indian Civil Service was 'ultra vires' its powers, illegal and void, and directing it to restore him to an office appropriate to his rank and seniority in the service, and for recovery of arrears of salary of a sum of Rs. 28884-13-0 and damages of a sum of one lakh rupees for terminating his service illegally and arbitrarily. On the plaint he paid a court fee of Rs. 935.The suit was dismissed by Panchapakesa Aiyar J. on 25th March 1952. On 20th August 1952 he preferred an Original Side appeal against the decree and judgment. He valued the memorandum of appeal at a sum of Rs. 1,44,385-13-0 and paid a court fee of Rs. 935 i.e. the same amount he paid on the plaint. Rule 1 of Or. II of the High I Court Pees Rules 1933 as amended by R...
Tag this Judgment!