Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad556
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 60 of 1948 instituted by them for partition of the suit properties alleged to be tarwad properties.One Sankaran Nair was the karnavan of the tarwad, whose widow and children are defendants 7 to 14. Sankaran Nair died on 26-7-1948, He executed his last will and testament on 20th September 1944. In and by the said will he dealt with the suit properties as his own private acquisitions and purported to deal with them by bequeathing them not only to his widow & children but to the plaintiffs and other defendants in the suit who are all members of the tarwad, the plaintiffs belonging to one tavazhi.In the suit the plaintiffs contest the genuineness and validity of the Will, their case being that Sankaran Nair was very old, weak In body and in mind and was completely under tile influence of his wife and children, that, moreover, all the properties dealt with by the will were tarwad properties and he had no right to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad643; (1953)2MLJ724
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The question that is raised for our determination in these applications is as to the validity of the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act, 10 of 1937, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in their application to medicinal preparations. The petitioner in W. P. no. 593 of 1952 is a practitioner of Indian medicine who has patented a medicine called 'Vitogen' and he challenges the validity of an order passed by the Government on 29-5-1952, declaring that 'Vitogen' was liable to be taxed as 'medicated wine'. That order was passed under Notification No. 473 dated 7-3-1949 which runs as follows: 'In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937 (Madras Act X of 1937) and of alt other powers hereunto enabling, His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby directs that medicinal preparations containing spirit self-generated from grapes, grape-juice or raisins which are similar to medicated wines shall be included in the term 'med...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad485
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Koilpatti in C. C. No. 50 of 1952. 2. The facts are: There is no dispute that a valid licence had been issued under the Madras Cloth Dealers Control Order in the name of Ramaswami Aiyar, the undivided father of the petitioner herein. It is also clear that the father and son were carrying on business as a joint family concern. This licence was renewed upto 1951. Ramaswami Iyer died in April 1950. In these circumstances the petitioner herein, the son of Ramaswami Aiyar had been prosecuted for selling M. Os. 1 to 5 to a hawker P. W. 1, viz, under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, for contravening clause 4(1) of the Madras Cloth Dealers Control Order, 1948. 3. The case for the accused was set out in hiswritten statement as follows: 'My deceased father and myself were carrying on the firm 'Messrs. Ramaswami Iyer'. My father d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad214
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. This is a case in which the maternal uncle alleged as a complainant that bis nephew had stolen from him two ear-rings and cash of Rs, 4810-0-9. The prosecution mainly relied upon a confessional statement recorded Under Section 27, Evidence Act which is stated to have been made by the nephew.The appellate Court found that this confessional statement could not be accepted as it exceeded the limits of admissibility laid down in the Privy Council decision of - 'Kotayya v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 67 (A) and the Madras cases of - 'Vodde Nagappa In re', AIR 1948 Mad 104(2) (B); - 'Public Prosecutor v. Voor Gounden', AIR 1948 Mad 242 (C); - 'In re Vellingiri' : AIR1950Mad613 'In re Sheikh Khadir Sahib' : AIR1950Mad108 and that there were several circumstances in this case like the uncle not coming forward with the complaint at the earliest possible time and the improbability of a nephew stealing the property of his uncle etc. creating considerable doubt and reversed the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad324
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The only, point for decision in this case is whether the persons who were found by the Inspector of Factories employed in the cigar factory can be considered to be workers. It is stated that these workers were employed on a contract basis and therefore cannot be held to be workers.2. This would not take them out of the definition of a worker under Section 2(h) of the Factories Act which means a person employed, whether for wages, or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process or in any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or connected with the manufacturing process but does not include any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room or place where no manufacturing process is being carried on (c. f. definition of workman in Workmen's Compensation Act 8 of 1923, Section 2, clause (n)). And a factory is defined under clause (j) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad398; (1953)2MLJ574
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether an institution known as the Apparswami Pagoda situated in Mylapore is a temple as defined inSection 9(12), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The appellant is the hereditary trustee of the institution. His contention is that it is only a Samadhi or tomb of one Apparswami and not a temple. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board held an enquiry under Section 84(1) and passed an order on 1-4-1947 that it is a temple as defined in the Act. The appellant applied in O. P. No. 200 of 1947 on the Original Side of this Court to set aside that order. The matter was heard by Krishnaswami Nayudu J. and after an elaborate enquiry, he agreed with the Board that the institution was a temple as denned in the Act and dismissed the petition. This appeal is presented against this judgment. 2. The case for the appellant is that there was a person called Apparswami belonging to the Vanibar community, that he was buried in this plac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad486; (1953)2MLJ717
ORDER1. During the course or the trial of O. S.No. 195 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsifof Karur, the plaintiffs attempted to adduce inevidence a certified copy of a registered partitiondeed entered into on 22-5-188C among various individuals. Before this was done, the plaintiffs hadasked defendants 3 and 4 to produce the originalpartition deed but the same had not been complied with. A registration copy was thereforesought to be let in. Defendants 1 and 2 contendedthat since the registration copy was not thirtyyears old it should be proved strictly like theoriginal and the presumption under Section 90 ofthe Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn inthis case.2. The executants and the attestors of the original partition deed are dead and it was not possible to prove the same by direct oral evidence. The learned District Munsif relied upon a decision in - 'Venkataratnam v. Sitaramayya' : AIR1950Mad634 where a Bench of this Court held that in view of the decision of the Privy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad603; (1953)IMLJ329
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters patent against the judgment of Subba Rao, J., dismissing the appellants' application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Bombay in so far as it related to the appellants. The appellants are a partnership firm doing business under the name and style of the Jaya Bharat Tile Works at Samalkot. The business was started in 1949. By G.O. Ms. No. 5990, Development, dated 6 December 1948, certain disputes relating to wages, etc., between the workers and the managements of four other tile works at Samalkot were referred to the industrial tribunal at Vijayawada for adjudication. The tribunal gave its award on 13 August 1949. It was accepted by the Government and under the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which will hereafter be referred to as 'the Act,' the award remained in force till 23 August 1950. Thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad813; (1954)IMLJ191
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and order of the Election Tribunal, Coimbatore, in Election Petition No. 1 of 1952 on the file of that Tribunal declaring the election of the petitioner to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Kangayam General Constituency void. The petitioner and the first respondent were the two candidates for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Kangayam General Constituency. The respondent filed two nomination papers on 20-11-1951. Both the nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer on scrutiny made by him on 28-11-1951 on the ground that the respondent had not filed a declaration relating to the appointment of his election agent. The petitioner was therefore declared elected as he was the only duly nominated candidate for the seat. The respondent thereupon filed an election petition under Section 81, Representation of the P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad184; (1953)2MLJ616
Ramaswami, J.1. These are connected appeals preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor against the order of acquittal of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tuticorin, in S. C. Nos. 439, 485, 487, 526 and 531 of 1951.2. The facts are: The respondents before us live at Tuticorin on the foreshore of the sea. Every day the fishermen go out in boats or canoes and bring in the catches. These catches are stacked on the foreshore by the persons to whom they belonged and these owners stand by the side of these catches. They employ these present respondents for auctioning these catches. The respondents cry out the upset price, invite bidders and when the price offeredexceeds the reserve price the sales are knocked down in the names of the highest bidders and those bidders pay the prices to the owners and take over from them the catches. If the reserved prices are not reached the owners take the fish to the market. These respondents are paid for the duties performed by them at the rate of qua...
Tag this Judgment!