Chennai Court February 1955 Judgments
K. Ramaswamy Doss Vs. A. Rama Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad569; (1955)IILLJ487Mad; (1955)1MLJ534
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai, dated 11-11-1953 passed under Section 20, Minimum Wages Act, (Act XI of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The petitioner carries on a public motor transport service. Employment in public motor transport is item 11 of Part 1 of the schedule to the Act. The tribunal found that the first respondent was in the employ of the petitioner as a bus conductor between 7-11-1951 and 4-3-1953. The notification prescribed by Section 3(l)(a)(i) and Section 5 of the Act was issued by the Government of Madras, the appropriate Government, on 28-3-1952, fixing the minimum wages payable under the Act to a bus conductor at Rs. 30 plus dcarness allowance of Rs. 10 a month.3. On 30-6-1953, the first respondent applied to the Industrial Tribunal as the authority appointed under Section 20, Clause (1) of the Act claiming...
Tag this Judgment!Anjaneya Motor Transport by Partner, S. Srinivasan Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad660; (1955)2MLJ376
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are appeals from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing the applications by the two appellants for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government setting aside the order of the Transport authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The second respondent in both the appeals, _ N.S. Motor Service, Salem, had permits for two puses' on the route Hosur to Salem. This operator applied on 11-3-1953 for the variation of the conditions of the permits for these two buses to enable them to he run beyond Salem upto Perundurai. The appellants before us are also operators running their buses in the route from Salem to Perundurai. This application for variation was dealt with by the Central Road Traffic Board, and under Rule 208 (b) of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the procedure applicable to an application for permit is prescribed for applications for variations also. The Board accordingly issued a notification...
Tag this Judgment!The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., with Its Office at Jamshedpur, Calcu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad654; (1955)2MLJ284
1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli imposing certain terms to be fulfilled by an applicant who prayed for the issue of a commission in examine certain witnesses in Calcutta. The case has been directed to be posted before a Bench by reason of certain conflicting decisions of this Court on the powers of the Court under Order 26, Rule 15, Civil P. C.2. The first defendant is the petitioner in this Court. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for the recovery of about Rs. 300 alleged to be due for shortage of goods supplied by the first defendant company. The defence was that there was no default on the part of the first defendant and that all the goods for which the plaintiff had paid were loaded in the wagons of the railway company. To prove that they had fulfilled their obligations under the contract, the first defendant company filed an application for the examination of four persons on commission at Calcutta, through the Co...
Tag this Judgment!G. Srinivasalu Naidu and ors. Vs. Raju Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad635
1. To decide the only question which has been placed before us in this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Viswanatha Sastri J., in A. S. No. 287 of 1947, it is sufficient to state the following facts: The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit properties. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are brothers, and plaintiffs 4 to 6 are their sons. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and defendants 3 and 4 their sons.By a deed of sale dated 9-5-1937 (Ex. D-18) executed by the plaintiffs, the suit properties were conveyed to the second defendant. On 14-5-1937, the first defendant executed in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 an agreement of reconveyance (Ex. P-1), which is the basis of the present suit for specific performance. The material part of this agreement runs as follows:"I have obtained a sale deed for Rs. 5000 from you in respect of the undermentioned family properties belonging to you for our family in the name of my undivided younge...
Tag this Judgment!Sengoda Goundan Vs. Muthuvellappa Goundan Minor by Next Friend and Mat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad531; (1955)2MLJ331
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Subba Roa J. in A. Section No. 534 of 1947, which arose out of a suit filed by the first respondent in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for partition of joint family properties.The plaintiff is the grandson of the first defendant, appellant before us, by a deceased son whose widow is the fourth defendant. The second and third defendants are two other sons of the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed a one-fourth share in the suit properties after setting aside certain alienations which had been made by the first defendant and others. The first defendant and other alienees pleaded 'inter aha' that the properties in suit were the self-acquisitions of the first defendant, but that plea was found against, and it has not been pressed before us. There was a further plea that the alienations were binding on the plaintiff, as they were made either for necessity or for the benefit of the family...
Tag this Judgment!Kannangara Ismail Vs. Palayat Kappadakkal Pavu Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad644; (1955)2MLJ184
Govinda Menon, J.1. The 11th defendant in O. S. No. 1178 of 1945 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kozhikode out of which this second appcfil arises is the appellant. The suit was for setting aside the decree in O. S. No. 1150 of 1944 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the same and hence the delivery that followed it is void and inoperative. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit. The short facts are these. The first defendant Mana had leased out the plaint property on 22-5-1920 to one Ukkappan Nair, who was the karnavan of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 on behalf of their tarwad and to Cheria Chandu the father of defendants 7 to 10 the two named individuals being joint lessees. As rent was in arrears O. S. No. 1150 of 1944 was brought for recovery of possession with arrears of rent from 1936-37 to 1943-44. To that suit the two defendants were the lessees Ukkappan Nair and Cheria Chandu but after summons was taken out itwas discovered that bot...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuchellappa Chettiar Vs. R.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad526; (1955)1MLJ28
1. I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that it is not possible to give the plaintiff any relief in this court without deviating from the ordinary law as regards jurisdiction in such matters. It would be dangerous to lay down any principle that a receiver by virtue of his appointment in a court to collect debts or even a particular debt becomes clothed with jurisdiction to file within the jurisdiction of such court suits for the recovery of debts which ordinarily must be filed in courts outside the jurisdiction of the court which appointed him. We have taken into consideration the fact that the respondents have not continued their challenge regarding jurisdiction in this Court but it is not possible to give the plaintiff relief on this ground. What I am quite unable to follow is why the plaintiff did not immediately comply with the direction of the learned Subordinate Judge and file the present plaint in the Sub Court, Devakottai.The result of his electing to file his app...
Tag this Judgment!P. Hajee Abdul Gafoor Sahib Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1955
Reported in: [1956]7STC133(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ to the authorities of the Commercial Tax Department to restrain them from enforcing an order of assessment already made and which had become final, under which the petitioner was liable to sales tax assessed under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1939, and the rules framed thereunder.2. The petitioner was a licensed tanner. For the assessment year 1950-51 he was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 24,22,622-14-5. The assessment was levied by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 22nd January, 1952. The assessee appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, but the assessment was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed on 24th April, 1952. The assessment became final. The tax liability was Rs. 37,853-7-9. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 5,265-3-9. The balance has yet to be collected. The validity of the assessment itself was challenged by this application presented in October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!S. Gopala Reddi Vs. Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad386
1. This appeal against the order of Govinda Menon J. dismissing an application by the appellant for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Government dated 20-10-1953 arises out of the following facts. The fourth respondent herein who had already a stage carriage permit on the route, Timvannamalai to Dharmapuri, applied for the renewal of his permit. When his application was published, the present appellant applied for the grant of a permit to him on the same route. Both the applications, i.e., the application of the fourth respondent for renewal and the appellant's application for the issue of a permit, were heard together, and quite rightly, by the Regional Transport Authority, because these two were rival applicants for a, permit on the same route. The Regional Transport Authority passed the following order on both, the applications:"Renewed after hearing the objection and representation. Individual cases of infringement wilt be dealt as and when they arise."The...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Noor Mohammad Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad599; (1955)2MLJ425
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 27-9-1954, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, ' convicted the accused in S.T. No. 434 of 1954 under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three weeks; As required by Section 15 (b) of the Act, the learned Magistrate also specified the amount of tax due from him as Rs. 116-7-0.He further directed that- this amount was recoverable as it it were a fine. On 27-9-1954, the. accused tendered a sum of Rs. 25 to the Court along with a memorandum making it clear that the payment was in respect of the fine imposed upon him; so far as the tax was concerned he prayed for a month's time to pay it. The learned Magistrate refused to allow that and passed the following order;'The tax is also collectable by the Court which sentenced the accused. The accused cannot pay the fine and walk off and make the tax irrecoverable. It is the duty of the Court t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »