Chennai Court October 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.
The Madras Provincial Type Foundry Workers' Union Vs. Ramalinga Mudali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1957Mad68; (1956)IMLJ295
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are petitions seeking to revise the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes dismissing four appeals filed before him under Section 17, Payment of Wages Act against orders of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation passed on applications made by a workers' union under Section 15(2) Payment of Wages Act against proprietors of certain foundries. The claim was for recovery of bonus alleged to be due and payable to the workers under an agreement between them and the proprietors.The Commissioner held that the bonus claimed by the petitioners would not fall within the definition of 'wages' in Section 2(vi), Payment of Wages Act and therefore the petitions under Section 15 of the Act were not sustainable, as the subject-matter was not covered by the Act. On this ground the petitions were rejected. Appeals were filed against these orders by the Union to the Court of Small Causes at Madras. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the prop...
R. Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Commr. of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)IMLJ220
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. It required a lot of courage to have filed this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner of Police suspending the licence of the petitioner to keep a lodging house, and the petitioner has been equal to it.2. The petitioner was granted a licence to run a lodging house in the City and he was running it, while so, there was a raid on his premises on 28th May 1955 by the local police and at that raid it was found that there were 11 girls there and 9 of them were occupying 9 of the rooms in that house each with a male person. The register of arrivals maintained at the premises did not contain the names of the girls but showed bogus names.A sum of Rs. 244 was found in the premises and was seized by the police. There were also four bottles including a water bottle all of which smelt of liquor. In these circumstances, the manager of this lodging house, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, and who was running it...
In Re: Sundaresa Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ204
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision filed against the order refusing to accept the contention of the petitioner herein, who was a Revenue Inspector of a Municipality, that he is entitled to protection under Section 353-A of the District Municipalities Act.2. The petitioner in the discharge of his duties, and by virtue of the delegation made to him by the Commissioner of the Municipality is said to have seized the complainant's cycle, for not possessing the necessary licence. For this a complaint has been filed against him under Sections 166, 170 and 341, Indian Penal Code.3. A preliminary objection was raised that under Section 353-A of the District Municipalities Act the Court should not take cognizance except with the previous sanction of the State Government. Admittedly there is no sanction by the State Government. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection provided under Section 353-A of the Act.4. That the petitioner is an officer of the municipali...
Athappa Gounder Alias Poosari Gounder and ors. Vs. Periasami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad344; (1956)2MLJ94
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These C.R.Ps. raise a very important question of law, viz., whether a compromise can be recorded by Court, and a decree passed in terms thereof, when it does not fall under one of three known categories, namely, (1) where all parties involved are knowingly and willingly parties to an oral adjustment or the compromise, the terms of which they know and have accepted; (2) where the advocates or lawyers appearing for the parties, exercising the powers given to them under their vakalats, adjust the matter and enter into a compromise, whether the parties have agreed or not; and (3) where the terms of the compromise have been embodied in a document presented to Court, signed by the parties and their advocates, and the Court is asked, by a separate petition, to pass a decree in terms of the compromise, permitting, as beneficial, minors, lunatics, etc., if any, to enter into it.2. The facts in this case are rather curious. The respondent in both these C.R.Ps., one Peria...
Abdul Rahim and Bros. and anr. Vs. R.K. Selvan Bros. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ237
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition preferred by the landlord whose application for eviction of his tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The tenant who is the respondent here took the premises on lease for the purpose of carrying on business in wine. On the introduction of prohibition into the Madras State the carrying on of this business became illegal with the result that from 1st October, 1948, the tenant ceased to do that business. This application was filed on 10th May, 1949, and the ground for eviction was that the tenant 'had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without a reasonable cause.' There was no dispute that the tenant, notwithstanding that he did not carry on his wine business was regularly paying rent due in respect of the property.2. The Rent Controller acceded to the petition of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenant filed an appeal to the ap...
Palaniswami Goundar Vs. Devanai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ366
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question which was argued before us was whether a Hindu wife is entitled to claim separate residence and maintenance under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act (Act XIX of 1946) on the ground that her husband had married a second wife, when the second marriage took place before the passing of the said Act. The answer to this question depends on a construction of Clause (4) which occurs in Section 2 of the Act. That section runs thus:Notwithstanding any custom or law to the contrary, a Hindu married woman shall be entitled to separate residence and maintenance from her husband on one or more of the following grounds, namely:(1) if he is suffering from any loathsome disease not contracted from her;(2) if he is guilty of such cruelty towards her as renders it unsafe or undesirable for her to live with him;(3) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say of abandoning her without her consent or against her wish;(4) If he...
S. Hajee Mohamed Haneef Saheb and Co. Vs. S.S. Abu Bucker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ471
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. C.C.C.A. No. 41 of 1953 is an appeal deferred by the 2nd defendant against the judgment and decree of the second additional City Civil Judge, in O.S. No. 1109 of 1951. Along with this O.S. No. 1237 of 1951 was also tried and a common judgment was passed in both the suits. C.C.O.A. No. 42 of 1953 is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Additional City civil Judge, in O.S. No. 1060 of 1951. The 2nd defendant has preferred the appeal in this also. There is of course, no appeal preferred by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 1237 of 1951. The two appeals have been argued by learned Counsel Mr. T. Krishnaswami Iyengar for the appellants.2. The suits were originally filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 with interest and costs, due on two dishonoured cheques which have been issued by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant who, in turn endorsed them over to the two plaintiffs in the suits. The cheques were dated 11th June, 1951, but the...
Kunjammal Vs. Malayappa Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad409; (1956)2MLJ67
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai. She is the daughter of Vaithianatha Ayyar, who died on 7th March, 1946. She succeeded to him and is in possession of the estate as a limited owner. The suit was by the two brothers of Vaithianatha Ayyar, as presumptive reversioners, for the appointment of a receiver for the estate of Vaithianatha Ayyar, in the hands of the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs prayed for the appointment of a receiver on the ground that the appellant was guilty of waste and a fraudulent design to convert and secrete the assets, a greater part of which consisted of outstandings and movables. The defendant-appellant denied having committed any waste or other injurious acts. She also denied any fraudulent design on her part to convert or secrete the asssets. The learned Subordinate Judge found on Issue No. 1 that the defendant has not been proved to be guilty of waste or othe...
Sheik Davood Rowther Vs. Rajasri Prathasimha Rajah Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ316
Krishnaswamy Nayudu, J.1. The appellant-defendant is a ryot against whom the plaintiff landholder instituted Summary Suit No. 75 of 1949 under Section 77 of Act I of 1908 in the Deputy Collector's Court, Tanjore, for recovery of arrears of rent for faslis 1355 and 1356. The plaintiff claimed the melwaram or rent at 11/1 2 kalams for the first crop on double crop wet lands and 13 kalams for the first crop on single crop wet lands on the basis of muchilika executed by the first defendant for faslis 1336-1340, Exhibit A-1 dated 10th September, 1928. There was an issue of a patta for fasli 1341 under Exhibit A-2 according to which the first crop charge on single crop wet land was 12 kalams per acre and there was no change in respect of double crop lands. There was an earlier summary suit for the previous faslis 1352-1354 in Summary Suit No. 6 of 1946, where the plaintiff claimed at the same rate at which he claimed in the present suit. The Deputy Collector then reduced it 10 6 kalams for b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›