Chennai Court July 1956 Judgments
V. Sundaram Iyer Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ613
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These writ petitions are for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies from proceeding with certain plaints filed before him under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act, and they raise for consideration mainly the proper construction of certain Sections of that enactment to which we shall advert presently. These petitions fall into two major divisions and each relates to two co-operative societies which have now been superseded and whose management has now been vested in special officers appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. W.P. Nos. 853, 914, 915 and 920 of 1955 arise out of claims made on behalf of the Sivaganga Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., while W.P. Nos. 258 to 263 of 1955 relate to claims preferred on account of the Karaikudi Co-operative Stores, Ltd.2. It will be necessary to set out in brief outline the facts and the allegations on the basis of which claims have been made again...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sundaram Iyer Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Raman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad634
1. These writ petitions are for the issue of writs of prohibition restraining the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies from proceeding with certain plaints filed before him under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act, and they raise for consideration mainly the proper construction of certain Sections of that enactment to which we shall advert presently. These petitions fall into two major divisions and each relates to two co-operative societies which have now been superseded and whose management has now been vested in special officers appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. W.P. Nos. 853, 914, 915 and 920 of 1955 arise out of claims made on behalf of the Sivaganga Co-operative Urban Bank, Ltd., while W.P. Nos. 258 to 263 of 1955 relate to claims preferred on account of the Karaikudi Co-operative Stores, Ltd.2. It will be necessary to set out in brief outline the facts and the allegations on the basis of which claims have been made against the petitioners in t...
Tag this Judgment!Perundevi Ammal Vs. Amavasikan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad113
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff appellant instituted a suit for maintenance O. S. No. 479 Of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Aral, against her husband Bhashyam Aiyangar and obtained a decree on 21-3-1942. The grounds on which separate maintenance was granted, were cruelty, neglect and abandonment by the husband and that he was also keeping a concubine. On 27th July 1943 Bhashyam Aiyangar sold the suit property which was charged with the maintenance decree.The sale was for the purposes of paying off the marriage expenses of Ehasham Aiyangar's daughter who instituted a suit O. S. No. 481 of 1949 and obtained a decree, Bhashyam Aiyangar, in executing the sale in favour of the first defendant, did not disclose that the property was charged with a decree for maintenance in favour of his wife and the sale was free from any encumbrance. But there can be no doubt that the property was charged with the maintenance under the decree in O. S. No. 479 of 1940 and the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Vs. State of Madras by Secretary, Dept. of Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ87
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner firm operates a timber saw mill at Baliapatam in Malabar District. By its letter, dated 29th November, 1954 the petitioner firm requested the GovernmentWe request you to kindly give your earnest and sympathetic consideration to our appeal and kindly treat our mill as intermittently working and exempt us from the provisions of the Act (the Industrial Disputes Act) regarding payment of compensation to workmen for lay-off and retrenchment.The provisions exemption from which the petitioner sought were those in Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which dealt both with lay-off and retrenchment in Industrial Establishments. Apparently what the petitioner sought was really exemption from Section 25-C to Section 25-E of the Industrial Disputes Act, because in its letter, dated 29th November, 1954, the petitioner firm drew the attention of the Government to Section 25-A(2).2. The Government's reply to that request was the order, dated 16th April, 19...
Tag this Judgment!The Kohinoor Saw Mill Co. Ltd., Baliapatam, North Malabar Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad410; (1957)IILLJ210Mad
1. The petitioner firm operates a timber saw mill at Baliapatam in Malabar district. By its letter dated 29-11-1954 the petitioner firm requested the Government "........We request you to kindly give your earnest and sympathetic consideration to our appeal and kindly treat our mill as intermittently working and exempt us from the provisions of the Act (the Industrial Disputes Act) regarding payment of compensation to workmen for lay-off and retrenchment". The provisions exemption from which the petitioner sought were those in Ch. V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which dealt both with lay-off and retrenchment in industrial establishments. Apparently what the petitioner sought was really exemption from Section 25-C to Section 25E of the Industrial Disputes Act, because in its letter dated 29-11-1954, the petitioner firm drew the attention of the Government to Section 25-A(2).2. The Government's reply to that request was the order dated 16th April 1955:"The management of the Kohi...
Tag this Judgment!T. Alagappa Goundar Vs. P.A. Karuppa Chetty Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ259
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner is the trustee (appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board) of the Badra Raliammal Temple in Mecheri, Omalur taluk, Salem district. Under Section 87 (c) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act he made an application to the District Magistrate, Salem, to direct the respondent to deliver possession to the petitioner of the temple properties which are set out in the list attached to the certificate.After hearing both parties, the District Magistrate directed the respondent to hand over the articles mentioned in the list to the petitioner herein. Against this order the respondent filed a revision case (Cri. Revn. case No. 676 of 1954) but the same was dismissed by this Court. Alter this, the petitioner went to take delivery of possession of these articles with the aid of the police.But the police finding it difficult to identify the jewels applied to the District Magistrate for the issue of a search warrant so as to enable them to seize the jewel...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram, Manager Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd., Singanallur Vs. Kumara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad185
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are all petitions filed by the Coimbatore Cotton Mills Ltd., Singanallur, for re-vising and setting aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, dated 16-10-1954, directing the Mills to refund the wage for eight days deducted from the wages of the nine respondents herein, under Section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for taking part in an illegal strike on the 17th and 18th December 1952, besides paying them compensation of Re. 1 each and costs of annas each. The Additional Commissioner passed such orders on the ground that the requirements of Rule 16(c) of the rules framed under the Act had not been complied with, and because the proviso there to would not apply to these cases. So, the only point for consideration is whether he is right to such a construction.2. Mr. Raja Aiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner in these nine civil revision petitions, urged that, under the proviso to Rule 16(c), the names of the p...
Tag this Judgment!T. Alagappa Goundar Vs. P.A. Karuppa Chetty Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ453
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner is the trustee (appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board) of the Badrakaliammal Temple in Mecheri, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. Under Section 87(c) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act he made an application to the District Magistrate, Salem, to direct the respondent to deliver possession to the petitioner of the temple properties which are set out in the list attached to the certificate. After hearing both parties, the District Magistrate directed the respondent to hand over the articles mentioned in the list to the petitioner herein. Against this order the respondent filed a revision case (Cr.R.C. No. 676 of 1954) but the same was dismissed by this Court. After this, the petitioner went to take delivery of possession of these articles with the aid of the Police. But the police finding it difficult to identify the jewels applied to the District Magistrate for the issue of a search warrant so as to enable them to seize the jewels, if ne...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalirunjolaimalai Ayyangar Vs. K. Sarangapani Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad756
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. In these two appeals a plea of absolute privilege is taken in defence to an action by the two plaintiffs (in Order S. Nos. 139 and 140 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai taluk at Madurai) who are brothers, in respect of certain defamatory statements alleged to have been made against the plaintiffs contained in a petition Ex. A. 1 dated 19-2-194' sent by the 2nd defendant along with several others to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Madurai. Copies of this petition were sent to the District Superintendent of Police, Madurai South and to the District Magistrate, Madurai.The allegations were enquired into by the CircleInspector of Police, Tirumangalam and on his report the District Superintendent of Police, Madurai South, made an endorsement on the petition that the allegations mentioned in the petition Ex. A. 1 were enquired into and found to be false and frivolous and the complainant, who is the 2nd defendant, was warne...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Govindaraj Vs. A.B. Kandaswami Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad186
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree in O.S. No. 9 of 1951, Sub-Court, Dindigul, dismissing his suit for the taking of the accounts of a dissolved partnership, for dealing in tobacco. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that the partnership put forward by the plaintiff was illegal as being prohibited by the Central Excises Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The plaintiff's case was that in or about 1945 he and the defendants (two in number) formed a partnership for trading in tobacco in Jakkamanayakkanpatti under the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to furnish the necessary finance, these advances carrying interest at 6 per cent, per annum, while the defendants were to be in charge of the day-to-day management of the business maintaining true and regular accounts, and that the profit and loss should be shared one half by the plaintiff, the two defendants together taking the other half. The agreement which resulted in these ar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »