Chennai Court October 1956 Judgments
Dr. V.K. John Vs. G. Vasantha Pai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad320
1. The above appeal and petition arise out of an election petition filed by the contesting respondent G. Vasantha Pal (who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent) before the Election Commission, New Delhi. The respondent and three others including Dr. V. K. John, the appellant and the petitioner before us, were candidates for election to the Madras Legislative Council, from the Graduates Constituency. Dr. John and one Dr. A. Srinivasan were declared elected to the two vacancies in the constituency.The respondent filed the election petition praving for the following three reliefs, viz, (a) declaring the election to be wholly void; (b) declaring the election of both the returned candidates as void; and (c) giving a finding that the first respondent (Dr. John) has been guilty of the corrupt practices specified in paragraphs 8, 9-a and 11 and illegal practice specified in paragraph 12 of the petition, and the second respondent (Dr. Srinivasan) has been guilty of the corrupt practi...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Newtone Studios Ltd. Vs. General Secretary, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad687; (1957)IILLJ270Mad
ORDERRajagopalan Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in App. No. III-381 of 1954 dated 20-8-1955, to the extent of the direction for the additional payment by the petitioner to the workers concerned on the basis of inclusion of dearness allowance as part of the wages in the calculation of retrenchment compensation.2 There is not much dispute about the facts at least at this stage. The petitioner is a cinema studio company. On 10-9-1953 it retrenched 54 of its workers on the ground that they were surplus for its requirements. This was contested by the workmen which resulted in an industrial dispose. This dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal of Madras for adjudication. The Tribunal after enquiry passed its award on 6-7-1954. It held that, the management were justified in retrenching 50 of the workers and as regards the other four the management them...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Salam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad268; 1957CriLJ516
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence pi the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tirupattur in G. C. No. 71 of 1956. 2. The (acts are: The Sanitary Inspector of Vaniyambadi purchased from the shop of this accused a packet of tea dust and which on being sent to the public analysist was found to contain artificial colouring matter derived from coal tar, and which the public analyst considered constituted an infraction of Rule 37 (E) of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Rules, which prohibited the sale or possession for the purpose of sale a mixture of tea and any substance prepared in imitation or as the substitute for tea. The position taken by the accused was that he did not sell tea to the Sanitary Inspector, that the tea was taken from his shop and that he did not know that any substance was added to the tea and that he has not committed any offence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused as charged and sentenced him to...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswanathan and anr. Vs. East India Distilleries and Sugar Factorie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad341
1. The petitioners, two in number, hold between them 100 ordinary shares in Parry and Co., Ltd. This company handles numerous line of businesses and one such line is that of being managing agents to other companies. Parry and Co., Ltd., are the Managing Agents of the East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories Ltd. On 18-10-1955 the E.I.D. wrote to the directors of parry and Co, Ltd, offering to purchase from its ordinary shareholders the entire issued ordinary share capital of Parry and Co, on certain terms. The particulars of these are set out in annexure "a" to the counter filed by the Deputy Managing Director of the E. I. D.Here it is enough to say that the offer was to allot one fully paid share of . 1 each in E. I. D. for every five ordinary shares of Rs. 2 each In Parry and Co. Ltd Alternatively for each ordinary share of Rs. 2 in Parry and Co. Ltd. the E.I.D. offered to pay Rs. 5-8-0 in cash. This offer, however, was subject to one Proviso and it was that in the case of individ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kadachira Motor Service Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad700
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Whether there was an industrial dispute as defined by the Act to justify a reference by the Govt. to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication is the question which the petitioners want to be determined at this stage. The Validity of the referenceunder Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Actby the Government cannot be challenged by an application for the issue of a writ of cert orari, because in making the order of reference, the Government wa's only doing a ministerial or administrative act. It has been held in more cases than onethat despite the fact that the validity of the reference itself cannot be challenged by an applicationfor the issue of a writ of certiorari to quashthe order of reference, the question whether a givendispute is an industrial dispute has yet to be decided.It is primarily for the Industrial Tribunal to decide that issue. If there is no industrial dispute at all as defined by the Act the Industrial Tribunal would obviously have no f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R.D. Fernandes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC365(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision directed against the conviction and sentence of the learned District Magistrate of South Kanara in S.T.C. No. 120 of 1956.2. The facts are : The Mangalore Tile Agency, Bunder, Mangalore, reported a 'nil' gross turnover and a net turnover of Rs. 1,11,825-12-0? in its 'A' return submitted for the year ending 31st March, 1951.3. This firm is a partnership concern dealing in tiles and ridges. Its two partners are Messrs. A.M. Fernandes and R.D. Fernandes, who are related to each other. The head office of the firm is stated to be at Ratnagiri in Bombay State and Sri R.D. Fernandes is stated to be in charge of that head office. The branch at Bunder, Mangalore, is under the management of the other partner Sri A.M. Fernandes. There have been misunderstandings between the two partners. It is stated by A.M. Fernandes that he ceased to be a partner of the firm with effect from 1st October, 1951.4. Inasmuch as the dealers failed to produce their acc...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pavadai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad292; 1957CriLJ517
1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate (Judicial) of South Arcot. The reference is made under the following circumstances : On 31-12-1955 at about 10-30 p. m., there was a prohibition raid in a place called Vinayagpuram hamlet of Adanur village in South Arcot Dt. The raid was conducted by the head constable of Thambur out post with the aid of two constables and two mahazar witnesses. The accused was caught red-handed while distilling arrack. M. Os. 1 to 7 were seized. They included utensils and other vessels used for distilling arrack and fermented wash.The accused was also arrested and sent to the Sub Inspector of Police at Khanjanoor within whose limits the offence took place with a special report by the head constable who conducted the raid The head constable at Khanjanoor police station who received the accused as also the report and the material objects seized during the raid from the head constable of Thambur registered a case in Cri. No. 1 of 1956 under Section 4 (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G. Alavandar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad427
Ramaswami, J. 1. This criminal revision is directed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C. C. No. 10098 of 1955. 2. The facts are: The revision petitioner, Alavandar, is the keeper of the Jana Sakthi press at No. 38 Mount Road, Madras-6. It was found from two pamphlets entitled 'Madras Preparatory Committee 5th World Festival of Youth and Students for Peace and Friendship' and its Tamil equivalent, that the petitioner had failed to print on them the name of the printer and the press as required under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and Rule 2 of the rules framed under Section 20 of the said Act, Therefore the Chief Presidency Magistrate filed a complaint under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. 3. The statement of this Alavandar was that he was the keeper of the Jana Sakthi press, that the pamphlets in question were printed at the said press, that the name of the printer and the person as required under Se...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad508; 1957CriLJ866
2. This is an appeal against the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore in S. C. No. 24 of 1956 on his file. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case as we are ordering retrial on a question of law that has been raised before us.3. The point that is taken before us is that the provisions of Section 173 (4), Criminal P. C., have not been complied with. Sub-section (4) of Section 173, Criminal P. C., is in these terms:"After forwarding a report under this section the officer in charge of the police station shall before the commencement of the enquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused, free of cost, a copy of the report forwarded under Sub-section (1) and of the first information report recorded under Section 154 and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof, on which the prosecution proposes to rely including the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under Section 164 and the statements rec...
Tag this Judgment!The Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Bangalore City and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad368; [1957]8STC177(Mad)
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. 1. These are petitions for the Issue of writs of prohibition directed against the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, Non-resident special circle, Madras, requiring him not to take further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him to the respective petitioners. The point raised by the writ petitions at the stage of the final argument was as regards the constitutional validity of the Sales tax Law Validation Act, 1956 (Central Act VII of 1956) which we shall refer to as the impugned Act. 2. Before discussing the legal points raised, it would be useful to set out the main facts of the three cases which are nearly identical. 3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 37 of 1955 is the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Bangalore. This company which manufactures textile goods in Bangalore city was effecting sales in the State of Madras and the goods were delivered in Madras in pursuance of such sales. The Deputy Commercial tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »