Chennai Court January 1955 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.
Nachi Muthu Gounder Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad605
ORDERMack, J.1. This petition raises only a question of court-fee as regards which I find there is no substance at all in the position taken by the petitioner. He is the first defendant and the father-in-law of the first plaintiff who along with her two daughters filed a previous maintenance suit O. S. No. 20 of 1938. This resulted in a compromise decree by which the first plaintiff was given maintenance of Rs. 5 a month and two daughters each Rs. 2-8-0.She instituted the present suit O. S. No. 295 of 1951 claiming from her father-in-law enhancement at Rs. 125 per month for herself and Rs. 75 for each of her daughters and paid a court-fee of Rs. 262-7-0 on her plaint under Section 7(ii) of the Court-fees Act that is 'ad valorem' court-fee on the annual increase of maintenance she claimed.2. A preliminary objection was taken and pressed that the suit was not valued correctly for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee and that it should have been valued under Article 17-B of Schedule II ...
Shanker and Co., by Its Proprietors D.K. Swami and anr. Vs. the State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad498
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is a petition under Section 24 of the Press (Objec-tionable Matter) Act, 1951, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, to set aside an order of the Government of Madras, G. O. Ms. 329 Public (General-B) dated 6-3-1954, published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 10-3-1954, declaring the Book 'Kalavikkalai' in Tamil, printed at Hajan Electric Press and published by the petitioner company, forfeit to the Government under Section 11 of the Act. The notification in question runs thus:'Whereas the Tamil book entitled 'Kalavik-kalai' purporting to be a translation of an Arabic work written by Sheikum Nafsawi, translated by Sri Rule P. M. Ghani, printed at Rajan Electric Press, Madras, and published by Shankar and Co., Madras, contains objectionable matter within the meaning of Clause (vi) of Section 3 of the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act 1951, (Central Act LVI of 1951).And whereas the Advocate General, Madras, lias granted a certificate under Section 1...
N. Venkatavaradan Vs. Sembiam Saw Mills, Sembiam, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad597; (1955)IILLJ11Mad; (1955)2MLJ209
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J. 1. This revision is against the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing an appeal by the petitioner under Section 17(1)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act, 4 of 1936.2. The petitioner was employed as a stenographer with the respondents, the Semhiam Saw Mills Ltd., on a salary of Rs. 85 per month and a dearness allowance of Rs. 35. Early in December 1950, he applied for leave for a week, which was sanctioned. But before the expiry of the week he wrote to the respondents that no extended his leave by a further period of one week. The respondents informed him by their letter dated 11-12-1950 that he should join duty on or before 13-12-1950.The petitioner states that he received that letter only on 17-12-1950, and in reply he wrote a letter stating that he was extending his leave by another fortnight from the 18th December, On 3-1-1951, after the reopening of the Mills in the new year, the petitioner presented himself for work and on tha...
A. Batcha Saheb Vs. Nariman K. Irani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad491; (1953)2MLJ152b
1. I have read with great interest the order of my learned brother, with which I am in substantial agreement. In C. Rule P. Nos, 1663 and 1666 of 1954, in which we dealt with the court-lee payable on the suits, we expressed the view that they were limited in scope and that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to determine the scaled-down amounts, if the mortgagors were found to be "agriculturists" entitled to relief under Section 13-A, Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act as amended by Act 23 of 1948. Within this limited scope of granting an injunction restraining exercise of powers of sale under Section 69, T. P. Act until the scaled-down amount is determined in a competent court by appropriate proceedings, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction, in my view, to lay down any terms under which the powers of sale under Section 69 can be exercised; nor can the mortgagee exercise these powers except for the scaled-down amount.It is regrettable that in the earlier injunction suit filed, ...
Nariman K. Irani and anr. Vs. A. Batcha Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad676; (1955)2MLJ216
1. I have had the advantage of perusing the order of my learned brother on this vexed question of court-fee arising out of Section 7, Clause 7 (iv) (c) Court-fees Act which, as it stands, gives a plaintiff a right to value the relist he seeks in any manner he pleases in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order where consequential relief is prayed for. This right unrestricted in cases coming within the scope of Section 7, Clauses (iv), (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) is circumscribed by the proviso added by Section 8, Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1922, that in suits corning under Section 7, Clause (iv) (c) where the relief sought*is with reference to any im-moveable property, such valuation shall not be less than half the value of the immoveable property calculated by S, 7 (v). If that proviso is applicable to the suits before us filed by a mortgagor ana puisne mort-gagee for a declaration and injunction to restrain the mortgagees exercising their powers of sale under Section 69(3), T. ...
Gyanambal Vs. Administrator-general of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad419
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition purporting to bo filed under Section 28, Administrator-General's Act of 1913.2. The facts are: Sri. T. Rangaswami Chettiar died at Madras on 29-6-1933. He left a will dated 1-5-1933 disposing of six immovable properties in Madras valued at Rs. 24,800/-. Under this willno executor was appointed. The testator left surviving himself his daughter Gyanambal, the petitioner herein, and a grand-daughter Swarnambal, and no other kith or kin. By the said will this Rangaswami Chettiar bequeathed a life estate in the income from the said properties to his daughter Gyanambal and a similar life estate to his granddaughter Swarnambal and the remainder for the children born to that Swarnambal. In case Swarnambal died without issue, male or female, the properties were to go in equal shares to certain charities. This contingency is extremely unlikely to happen as this Swarnambal had already four minor children, and their father Thirunavukarasy Chettiar, the guardian o...
S.R.M. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappan Chettiar Vs. S.R.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad682; (1955)2MLJ408
1. The plaintiff, whose claim for a half share of the properties in the possession of the defendant and for recovery of possession thereof was dismissed, appealed. In para. 33 of the plaint the plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 1000, Rs. 15 lakhs represented the value of the half share in the properties the plaintiff claimed and Rs. 1000 was the figure at which the plaintiff valued the relief of accounts he sought in addition to the share. The plaintiff did not value separately for purpose of court-fee the claim to a half share in the properties, as he paid the fixed court-fee on that relief under Schedule II, Article 17-B of the Court-fees Act.2. By its order dated 28-4-1954 this Court decided that court-fees should he paid on the memorandum of appeal, not under Article 17-B of Schedule II, Court-fees Act, but under Section 7(iv-B), Court-fees Act, and the Court directed the plaintiff to value the relief he claimed in the memorandum of appe...
In Re: M.P. Kumaraswami Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad326; 1955CriLJ968
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a revision against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 15(b), Madras General Sales Tax Act. The facts are set out in the judgment of the lower court and it is unnecessary for me to restate them here. Suffice it to say that in this case, the petitioner has been prosecuted for non-payment of tax provisionally fixed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner started his sweetmeat shop on 1-8-1953. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer visited the shop and it is stated that the petitioner submitted a return in form A-l as required by Rule 6 of the Rules of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939 and on that basis A-2 notice was served on him on 25-10-1953 and for failure to pay the tax for three months, August, September and October, he was prosecuted and convicted. 2. This is a case in which the petitioner has been asked to pay the sales tax even before the turnover for the year has been determined under th...
Annamalai Mudaliar and Bros. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad387; (1955)ILLJ674Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm which owns a factory at Karur where bed-sheets and towels are manufactured on hand-looms. The real question that arises for determination in this application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ to the respondents, to restrain them from enforcing the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act (Act 19 of 1952) and the scheme framed thereunder against the petitioner firm, was whether it 'employed' 50 persons or more in the factory within the meaning of Section 1(3) of that Act,2. The position was to some extent clarified after the first respondent filed a supplementary counter affidavit. The seven persons enumerated in para, 2 of that affidavit belonged to the office staff of the petitioner's factory, and they were paid wages on a monthly rate. It was only with reference to these seven persons that contributions were claimed by the first respondent under the provisions...
Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad627; 1955CriLJ1506; (1955)2MLJ34
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The facts are not in controversy. MDF. 455 is a bus whose laden weight is 15,900 pounds. On 11-2-1954 the driver of the bus was one Doraiswami who had a license to drive only a light transport vehicle. The police took the view that MDF. 455 is a heavy transport vehicle and prosecuted Doraiswami under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a heavy transport vehicle without proper authority in that behalf.Doraiswami was convicted and fined. Subsequently, the owner of the bus was proceeded against under Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act for permitting Doraiswami to drive that vehicle. The StationarySub-Magistrate, Chidambaram, acquitted the owner. He observed;'.....The present definition of a light transport vehicle in Section 2 Clause 13 would then seem meaningless, Having regard to all aspects stated above, it seems to me that the question of axle weight and laden weight is to be considered only, in the case of a goods vehicle to determine whet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »