Chennai Court March 1956 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. Kadamban Namboodiripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ400
Somasundaram, J.1. The accused was charged for an offence under Section 3(1) of the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act punishable under Section 7 of the Act. The offence is said to consist in the accused leasing out in S. N 176/1 about 48-65 acres of land without the permission of the Collector. Under Ex. D. 2 dated 13th August 1948 permission has been granted to clear the forest; and, in accordance with the contract entered into by the accused with one Chandrasekharan Nair, this was to be cleared in six years period.2. One of the questions raised by Mr. Nambiar appearing before me is that once a forest is cleared for which permission has been granted, it ceased to be a forest and therefore a person is entitled to lease out the property without the sanction of the Collector as sanction is necessary only in cases of forests and not of lands which have been cleared and which cease to be a forest, I do not think it necessary to go into this question at the present stage as the grou...
Tag this Judgment!M.A.M. Subbiah Ambalam Vs. the Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ188
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against a conviction under the District Municipalities Act. The petitioner herein has a house in a street called Uttamavinayakar Lane within the limits of the Karaikudi Municipality. He had committed certain encroachments by putting up certain tops and also some steps in front of his house. He appears to have been taking out a license under Section 183(1) paying the usaul fee for such a license. But, in the year in question he did not pay the necessary fee and obtain the license. He was, therefore, prosecuted for not taking out a license and he has been convicted by the Courts below under Section 183 read with Section 313(c) of the Act.2. It is contended here that this is not one of those cases where a person is compelled to take out a license, without which he is prohibited from doing those certain acts. All such acts are covered by Chapter XII of the Act, which mentioned the various acts for which a license or permission from the municipalit...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vaidyanatha Iyer Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC268(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a merchant carrying on business in piece-goods and yarn at Erode for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,422.10 alleged to have been levied as sales tax, which levy is contended to be illegal and ultra vires of the powers of the State. In 1945, a scheme of distribution of cotton piece-goods was brought into effect to ensure a proper and steady supply of cloth to the different parts of the State. From Exhibits A-17 and A-15, which are the circulars issued by the Textile Commissioner and dated 12th May, 1945, and 16th May, 1945, the following appears to be the system that was introduced for the purpose. Mill-made cloth available for consumption in the State was placed under four categories : (1) cloth purchased by quota-holders from the mills situate outside the south deficit zone (presumably the south deficit zone included Madras State); (2) cloth purchased by quota-holders from mills situate within that zone; (3) market purchases...
Tag this Judgment!N. Swaminathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the General Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ217
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 passed by the General Manager, M.&.S.M., Railway, on 30th December, 1948, by which the petitioner's services were dispensed with.2. On 22nd September, 1948, the petitioner, who was an Assistant Commercial Inspector, was suspended from service pending investigation into the proposed charges. The post he held was a non-gazetted and non-pensionable one. On 27th September, 1948, two charges were framed against the petitioner, and he submitted his explanation on 2nd October, 1948. The charges were not apparently proceeded with further. On 30th December, 1948, the General Manager gave notice to the petitioner terminating his services with effect from 9th February, 1949, giving him a month's notice of such termination to take effect from 10th January, 1949. On 9th February, 1949, the petitioner's services were terminated.3. Rule 148(3) of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarvotama Kamath and ors. Vs. Abdulla Beary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad192
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, Ex. A-1, dated 24-7-1907 executed by two ladies, Parameshwari and Devamma, in favour of Raghuvayya, for a sum of Rs. 550 the period fixed for payment being thirty years. The right to redeem the property, would therefore accrue in 1937. The following genealogical table may be helpful in appreciating the facts of this case : GIDDU SHEREGARA | ______________________|______ | | | | Giriya Subraya-Devakiamma | | | | Pakira Malinga-Parameshwari | | _______|__________ ________|__________ | | | | | | | | Girla appaya Devamma Keshva SubrayaOn 20th October 1945, the plaintiff acquired the suit properties by sale deed Ex. A-2 from Apayya, son of Pakkira, who claimed to be the reversioner of the last male holder Kesava alias Subraya to whom the suit properties belonged. Keshava died issueless in about 1890 and after his death, the parties bein...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sivaramakrishnan Vs. P. Arumugha Mudaliar, Inspector of Registratio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad17; (1955)2MLJ460
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of quo warranto, questioning the validity of the appointment of Sri P. Arumugha Mudaliar, who has been impleaded as respondent 1, as the Inspector General of Registration, Madras, by the State Government named as respondent 2.2. The ground of attack is based on allegation, that Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution has been violated, in this the State Government did not consult the Public Service Commission before making the impugned appointment. Arumugha Mudaliar was an Assistant Secretary to the Government, and by an order dated 17-3-1954 the Government of Madras appointed him to the office of the Inspector General of Registration with effect from 18-4-1954.The affidavit in support of the petition conceded that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution the Madras Public Service Commission had to be consulted when recruitment was made to the post of Inspector General of Registration by transfer from the cadre of De...
Tag this Judgment!D.D. Krishnaswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. A.C. Veeranna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ4
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri in M.P. No. 108 of 1955. The respondent has been appointed as a trustee of six temples, the properties in two of which were said to be in the posession of the petitioners, and which the respondent seeks to recover possession under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act That the respondent has been appointed as a trustee is not disputed. The petitioners have come up against the order of the Commissioner directing the respondent to take possession, and that was the subject of attack in several proceedings by the petitioners herein. In none of those proceedings no doubt the point, that is now taken was taken For the first time the point is taken now before the Magistrate.2. The point is that the certificate which has been issued in favour of the respondent bears only the facsimile signature of the Deputy Commissioner concerned and it does not contain the signa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ222
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. These petitions filed by the State under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act arose out of assessment proceedings for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. The assessee was the same, and the point that arose for determination in both the petitions was identical.2. The Appellate Tribunal held that in both the years the assessee was entitled to the exemption granted by Rule 5(1)(g)(ii) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules. The amount for 1951-52 was Rs. 6,743 representing the cost of gunny bags, and a further sum of Rs. 33,761 representing the cost of mats, etc., which the assessee used for packing the materials which he had sold. In the year 1952-53 the items were Rs. 3,554, the cost of gunnies, and Rs. 38,669 the cost of mats. The Tribunal found that the appellants had shown the packing charges separately from the price of the goods fold. The further finding of the Tribunal wasWe fail to understand how the Commercial Tax Officer held that the charges realise...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Moosa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ567
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of South Arcot, Guddalore, under the following circumstances:2. In C.C. No. 3734 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Villupuram the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. As the accused was aged only 12 years, the Sub-Magistrate followed the procedure laid down under Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Madras Children. Act. That is, he followed the summons procedure, though this is a warrant case. On the admission of the offence by the accused, the Sub-Magistrate committed the accused to the custody of the grandfather, who was present in Court, under Section 28(b) of the Madras Children Act. The learned District Magistrate seems to think that the summons procedure can apply only to the offences under the Children Act and not to the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Section 28 of the Madras Children Act clearly provides:Where a child or young person charged with any off...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ibrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ568
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate (Judicial), Coimbatore under the following circumstances. The Taluk First Class Magistrate, Gudalur, committed on 26th August, 1955, the respondent in M.C. No. 15 of 1955 on his file to the Borstal School Palamkottah, for a period of two years. There is a Government notification dated 19th December, 1955, under which the Taluk First Class Magistrate in question was invested by the Governor under Section 6 of the Borstal Schools Act with all the powers conferred on a Court by the said Act. The District Magistrate, is, therefore, of the opinion that on the 26th August, 1955, the Taluk First Class Magistrate was not empowered to exercise the powers under the Borstal Schools Act and hence this reference.2. That the magistrate in question is a First Class Magistrate is not in doubt But the question is whether he should be specially empowered by the State Govern ment to act under Section 6 of the Act.3. S. 6 of the Borsta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »