Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1957)ILLJ90Mad
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is a firm of partners called Sri Ramachandra Spinning Mills, Pandalapaka. The first defendant is the State of Madras. The second defendant is one Venkata Reddi who was an employee in the plaintiff's mill. In September 1946 the first defendant appointed Mr. Sherfuddin, the then District Judge of East Godavari, as an adjudicator to report what rates of dearness allowance the plaintiff's mill (as well as another) should be required to pay to its employees.While Mr. Sherfuddin's enquiry was in progress, Government referred to Mr. Venkataramiah the wider question of the wage structure of the textile mills in the Province. Mr. Venkataramiah made an interim report recommending that the rates of pay should be on a certain basis and on 18 February 1946 Government issued G.O. No. 4637 giving effect to his proposals. Mr. Sherfuddin made his report on 23 December 1946 and Government accepted the remommendations contained in it and directed that this should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1956CriLJ247
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the order of maintenance passed against the petitioner herein who was the respondent in the lower court. The maintenance is claimed by the mother on behalf of her three children. She claimed maintenance only on behalf of her children. There was no marriage between her and the petitioner herein. The lower court directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 for the first child, aged six years at the time of the petition, and Rs. 10 each for the other two children aged 3 and 1 at the time of the petition.The evidence shows that the mother was a doctor earning about Rs. 270 to Rs. 300 a month, whereas the petitioner herein is a postal employee earning only Rs. 170. After deductions the net income is only Rs. 123-15-0. In fact the mother of the children earns twice as much and more than the father of the children. On these facts it is contended by Mr. Mohankumaramangalam that under Section 24 of the Guardians and W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad368; (1956)1MLJ307
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal which arises out of a suit on a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 14,000 executed in favour of the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 2, their mother Syed Mitheen Beevi on her own behalf and as guardian of defendants 3 and 4, her then minor children. The defence to the suit, was that as defendants 3 and 4 were minors on the date of the mortgage their shares in the properties would not be bound. The learned Subordinate Judge has accepted that contention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff only with regard to the shares of defendants 1 and 2 ignoring the fact that in respect of the share of Mitheen Beevi who was dead at the time of the suit, the mortgagee will be entitled to get a decree. The facts of the case may shortly be stated thus:2. One Gouse Muhammad was a partner in a trading business with his three brothers. At the time of the partition of the family properties between Gouse Muhammad and his partners it was found t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1956Mad72; (1956)1MLJ82
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Venkatatama Aiyar, J., in a petition C.M.P. No. 6745 of 1951 to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai. The learned Judge allowed the application and granted the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2, who were the main contesting respondents before the learned Judge, have preferred this appeal.2. The question in issue in the present appeal is whether the village of Ekkattu Thangal in Chingleput District is or is not an 'inam estate' which could be taken over by Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) and incidentally a further question whether the learned Judge had jurisdiction to quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal which held the village to be such an 'estate'.3. Before dealing with the merits concerning the two points above-mentioned, it would be convenient to narrate the proceedings that took place before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ272
Rajagopalan, J.1. One of the sources of income of the assessee, undivided Hindu family which the Rajah of Nilambur represented in the relevant assessment years, was the Kuttikanam, which was virtually the sale price of timber from the private forests of the assessee. We are concerned in these proceedings only with that portion of the income which the assessee obtained from his forests that stood on the lands on which he paid land revenue to the Government. It should be convenient to refer to that income in the rest of this judgment as 'forest income.'2. Down to and inclusive of the assessment year 1940-41, both the assessee and the department treated this forest income as agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Income-Tax Act, exempt from Income-tax. In the assessment year 1941-42 also the forest income was not taxed. The circumstances under which the income under this head was left untaxed that year were explained by the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)2MLJ64
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision. He filed an application J.A. No. 1958 of 1951 under Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for the amendment of the cause title in the plaint and the judgment and decree in respect of O.S. No. 417 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Erode which he brought for the recovery of Rs. 2861-2-0 and in which he obtained a decree. But the application has been dismissed and the revision is against this order.2. The facts necessary to understand the points lie in a very brief compass. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business under the name and style of A.V. Subramaniam. This firm had certain transactions in turmeric with a person carrying on business under the name and style of 'Ramachandra Behari Lal' at Aligarh. There were notices which preceded the suit and as the person trading in the name of Ramachandra Behari Lal did not comply with the demands of the plaintiff, O.S. No. 417 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ238
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. These Revision Petitions are filed against the Orders of the learned Additional Judge of the Madras Small Causes Court functioning as a Court of appeal against the order of eviction passed against the petitioner. The order of eviction was made on 10th January, 1955, and as against that the petitioner the tenant, preferred an appeal on 8th February, 1955. It was alleged by him that he became aware of the order only on 31st January, 1955, when notice of execution proceedings was served upon him. According to him he applied for a copy of the order on Ist February, 1955 and obtained it on 7th February, 1955 and preferred the appeal on 8th February, 1955. Section 12(1)(b) of the Lease and Rent Control Act prescribes that any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Controller may, within 15 days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. The present appeal was not preferred within that period, and there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1955)IILLJ481Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner-firm which has a branch at Madras has its head office at Bombay. The second respondent was in the service of the petitioner at Madras and held the post which was designated branch manager. The petitioner-firm terminated the services of the second respondent with effect from 28 August 1953, after giving-him a month's salary in lieu of notice and also an additional payment ex gratia. The second respondent preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947. In the proceedings before the Commissioner, the preliminary objection of the petitioner, that the appeal was not competent and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction, was overruled. It is the validity of that order of the Commissioner, dated 5 May 1954, that the petitioner challenged by his application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.2. Section 41(2) gives the 'pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ58
Govinda Menon, J.1. I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother though I would like to state the reasons for arriving at that conclusion in my own way.2. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the first defendant and his father were carrying on grocery business in Mannargudi and in another village before they became divided. Under the partition the old grocery business with all its assets and liabilities were allotted to the share of the father and the first defendant was given for his share five acres and 70 cents of land charged with a debt of Rs. 700. Even before the partition, the first defendant had started a business of his own which he continued afterwards.' This business consisted of importing goods like arecanuts, etc. from Ceylon, Burma and Singapore. The question is whether this business can be styled as the ancestral trade of defendants 2 to 4. The learned Subordinate Judge was of the opinion that as the old grocery business which had been c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ411
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. In enforcement of the mortgage effected on 24th March, 1945, by Selvarangam and Shanmugam to the Salem Urban Co-operative Society, the Society brought the hypotheca to sale. The sale was held under the orders of the Deputy Registrar on 9th November, 1951. The petitioner purchased the properties at that sale for Rs. 555. The sale was eventually confirmed by the Deputy Registrar on 15th January, 1952. The first respondent, who had purchased the same property in a sale held by a civil Court on 25th January, 1951- that sale was confirmed on 1st October, 1951-applied to the Registrar on 10th June, 1952, under Section 57 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act to revise the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15th January, 1952, confirming the sale. The petition was disposed of by the Additional Joint Registrar on 29th September, 1953. He set aside the sale which had been held on 9th November, 1951, mainly on the ground, that the property had been sold for a grossly i...
Tag this Judgment!