Chennai Court May 1956 Judgments
Burmah Shell and Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd., Madras Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad60
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. One of the questions referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as an industrial dispute between the petitioner company and its employees, was the quantum of bonus payable to the workmen for 1952. The Workers' Union claimed that three categories of employees, the Depot Superintendent, the Assistant Depot Superintendent and the lady Secretary, were also entitled to participate in the award of bonus as they were also 'workmen' as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The company resisted that claim and pleaded that these three categories of employees were not workmen as defined by the Act, and that any claim on behalf of those employees would not be an industrial dispute' within the cognizance of the Industrial Tribunal. 2. That identical question arose for determination with reference to an industrial dispute, in 1951 in I. D. No. 2 of 1952, between the same parties, the company and the workers' Union. The Industrial Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Thattikkarantavila Bamban Vs. the Island Inspecting Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-11-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ361
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two writ petitions raise for consideration the validity of the orders passed, whereby the petitioners, who are the natives of Malabar, have been prevented from entering the Island of Minicoy in the Arabian Sea. These petitions originally carne on for hearing before one of us sitting singly, but in view of a challenge to the validity of Section 33 of the Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation I of 1912, it was directed to be posted before a Bench and they were heard by us. The learned Advocate-General appeared for the State, and we are obliged to him for the assistance he rendered us.2. The facts giving rise to the petition were briefly these: W.P. No. 533 of 1955 is by a single petitioner. He is a native of Malabar District, of which Minicoy Island forms part. He claims to have been permitted to reside in this island for about 18 years past, carrying on there a business in grocery. He also claims to have married a native of the island and to have ...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Srinivasan Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ317
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. In this case, the accused was convicted for breach of By-law No. VIII of the by-laws framed under Clause (28) of Section 349 of the Madras City Municipal Act, that is, for failure to enrol himself as a licenced advertiser after making the requisite security deposit. That by-law provides thus:Persons or agencies who undertake the display of advertisements on behalf of others shall enrol themselves as licensed advertisers on payment of a security deposit of not more than Rs. 100 and hot less than Rs. 50 each as the Commissioner may decide for the due observance of the by-law.2. This and the other by-laws were framed by the Council under the powers given to it by Clause (28) of Section 349 of the Madras City Municipal Act. That section enables the Council to make by-laws not inconsistent with the Act or with any other law to provide for the prohibition and regulation of advertisements. Under that section, it is open to the Council to prohibit altogether all adverti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Cannanore Milk Supply Co-operative Society and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ75
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Cri. P. C. No. 169 of 1956 - This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of North Malabar under the following circumstances. The accused in C. C. No. 153 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry, were prosecuted under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act No. 37 of 1054) for adding water to milk. The authority who initiated the prosecution was the Sanitary Inspector of Cannanore. On the merits, as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge there is really no case for the accused. But the point of law that has been raised before the Sessions Judge for the purpose of reference to this Court is that the prosecution has not been launched by the proper authority, that is to say, the Sanitary inspector, who has filed this prosecution is incompetent to launch this prosecution under Section 20 of the Central Act 37 of 1954. Section 20 of that Act is as follows:20(1) No prosecution for an ...
Tag this Judgment!Chairman of the Madras Port Trust Vs. Claims Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad69; (1956)IILLJ490Mad
Rajagopalan, J.1. Respondents 2 to 12 were employees of the Madras Port Trust, represented by the petitioner. Of these respondents, respondent 9 Lakshmanan, was a Maistry and the rest were shore labour Mazdoors. It was a combination of time basis and piece work basis that was adopted by the employer for the payment of their monthly wages. The details of the emoluments payable to them were as follows : A mazdoor was paid every month Rs. 22 at attendance wage (retainer); a Maistry was paid Rs. 27 a month, in addition, each of the employees, Mazdoors as well as Maistries, was paid a special dearness allowance of Rs. 15 a month, a house rent allowance of Rs. 7 and a compensatory allowance of Rs. 3. In addition to these four items, there was a fifth, daily earnings for work done calculated on a piece rate or daily rate.Those rates were five annas a ton for handling ship cargoes; three annas a ton for loading and unloading of wagons; four annas a ton in respect of such loading or unloading f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Cannanore Milk Supply Co-operative Society and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ465
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of North Malabar under the following circumstances. The accused in C.C. No. 153 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tellicherry were prosecuted under the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Central Act No. XXXVII of 1954) for adding water to milk. The authority who initiated the prosecution was the Sanitary Inspector of Gannanore. On the merits, as pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge there is really no case for the accused. But the point of law that has been raised before the Sessions Judge for the purpose of reference to this Court is that the prosecution has not been launched by the proper authority, that is to say, the Sanitary Inspector who has filed this prosecution is incompetent to launch this prosecution under Section 20 of the Central Act XXXVII of 1954. Section 20 of that Act is as follows:20 (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Bambrana Guddappa Rai and ors. Vs. Ramanna Banta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad95
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in O. S. No. 200 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara who may be compendiously known as the mortgagees, while the plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 24 to 26 represent the family of the mortgagors. The other defendants are tenants who-have been impleaded as necessary parties to the litigation. The action in the court below was for the redemption of a mortgage executed by the family of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants' family evidenced by Ex. 1 dated 15-6-1909 for a sum of Rs. 1,899. The mortgage was usufructuary in character and the mortgagees were put in pos-session of the properties. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to detail at any length the terms and conditions of the mortgage especially since in the court below the right of the plaintiffs to redeem Ex. A 1 was not questioned. The-main contest was with regard to the value of Improvements pay...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ366
1. The assessee firm consisted of three partners in its first year of assessment 1949-1950, the account period having ended on 2nd August, 1948. The firm did not apply for registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act at any time before the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment. The firm, however, applied under Rule 2(c) of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, before whom the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of assessment was then pending. The Assistant Commissioner eventually rejected that application. The reasons for rejection and the order of rejection formed part of the order, the Assistant Commissioner passed on the appeal. The refusal of the Assistant Commissioner to accord permission to the assessee under Rule 2(c) was one of the points raised by the assessee in the further appeal it preferred to the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. On that issue, the order of the Appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!Rambrana Guddappa Rai and ors. Vs. Ramanna Banta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ504
Govinda Menon, J.1. The appellants in this appeal are defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 200 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara who may be compendiously known as the mortgagees, while the plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 24 to 26 represent the family of the mortgagors. The other defendants are tenants who have been impleaded as necessary parties to the litigation. The action in the Court below was for the redemption of a mortgage executed by the family of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants' family evidenced by Exhibit A-1 dated 15th June, 10,09 for a sum of Rs. 18,999. The mortgage was usufructuary in character and the mortgagees were put in possession of the properties. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to detail at any length with the terms and conditions of the mortgage especially since in the Court below the right of the plaintiffs to redeem Exhibit A-1 was not questioned. The main contest was with regard to the valu...
Tag this Judgment!indo Union Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad587; [1956]30ITR603(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This reference under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act raises for consideration the proper construction of Rules 2 (b) and 3 (a) of Schedule I to the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee is the Indo Union Assurance Co. Ltd., Madras, which carries on the sole business of life insurance; and in regard to its assessment for the assessment year 1947-48, the following question arose which has been referred to this Court for decision :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, one half of the amount of Rs. 58652 should not have been allowed as a deduction under Rule 3 (a) of the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in computing the surplus for the purpose of Rule 2 (b) of the said schedule?'The previous or accounting year in question is the Calendar year 1946. The last actuarial valuation of the company was made for the inter-valuation period commencing from 1-1-1942 and ending on 31st December, 1945. This disclosed a deficit of Rupees 1642. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »