Chennai Court November 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Marimuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. T.R. Krishna Joshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ273
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These appeals arise out of a common order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Mathurai, in a batch of petitions filed under Section 42 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) seeking payment of advance compensation deposited with the Tribunal in respect of the Karungalur estate in Tanjore district.2. A sum of Rs. 35,913, was deposited with the Tribunal under Section 54-A of the Abolition Act in respect of the inam estate of Karungalur. As many as 42 petitions were preferred to the Tribunal seeking payment of proportionate shares in the sum so deposited. The Tribunal ordered four of these petitions and dismissed the rest. Appeals have been preferred by the petitioners whose claims have been rejected by the Tribunal.3. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to understand the basis of the rejection of the appellants' claims by the Tribunal and the contentions advanced before us questioning the corr...
The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mangaldas N. Varma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ16
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. Sri M.N. Varma (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) entered into a contract with the Government of India to construct huts in the Avadi camp for the use of the military authorities. It was what was known as a lump sum contract. The amount was over Rs. 20 lakhs. The works were completed in 1945. Disputes about the quantum still payable to the contractor were referred to arbitrators in accordance with clause 35 of the contract between the contractor and the Government. Since the two arbitrators differed they referred the questions at issue between the parties to an umpire. The award of the umpire Sri C.G. Modi, dated 29th July, 1953, ran:The Union of India, the opponents, do pay to the claimant Shri Mangaldas N. Varma the sum of Rs. 6,05,000 (rupees six lakhs and five thousand only) in respect of the claim. I do further award that the opponents do pay to the claimant Rs. ao,ooo (rupees twenty thousands only) for costs of this reference.2. Though the arbitr...
In Re: the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: (1958)IMLJ206; [1958]9STC169(Mad)
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. In 1946 the proprietors of some hotels in the town and taluk of Sirkali constituted themselves into an association called the Sirkali Taluk Hotel Keepers' Association, with the object of setting up an organisation that would inter alia effectively represent their grievances to the authorities. The Association was registered under the Societies Registration Act. Subramania Ayyar the plaintiff was the first elected President of the Association till some time in 1951, when he resigned. While the plaintiff was the President of the Association it purchased various commodities necessary for the business which its members were carrying on and distributed the articles among them. In respect of such purchases and sales the Association was assessed to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The officers of the department were unable to collect the tax from the Association. The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer then wrote to the second...
In Re: Pechimuthu Pandithan Ramaswami Pandithan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad305
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Kanyakumari District under the following circumstances.2. In C.C. No. 787 of 1956 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Shencottah, the accused was convicted for prohibition offence, the charge being that the accused was found being drunk with toddy heavily. He pleaded guilty to the -charge. The plea was accepted and he was convicted. In these circumstances, there is no need for the Magistrate to go into any other matter. The Excise Range Inspector, who is said to have produced the accused before the Magistrate, made certain irrelevant statement on which the Magistrate has acted and made certain observations about the Doctor that he gave a certificate showing that there was no smell of liquor emanating from the accused- These observations about the Doctor are totally unwarranted and irrelevant for the purpose of the case.As the accused has already pleaded guilty to the charge, the Magistrate must have known that ...
Marudakkal and anr. Vs. Arumugha Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ101
Subrahmanyam, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S. No. 150 of 1949. The defendants are the appellants.2. The suit was for a declaration that the sale Exhibit B-7 by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was not binding on the reversioners to the estate of the first defendant's husband Thanga Goundan. He died in June, 1944. The plaintiff is Thanga Goundan's brother's son. It is not denied that he is the presumptive reversioner to Thanga Goundan's estate. The property sold was a house in Coimbatore. It was sold for Rs. 7,000. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the sale was not binding on the reversioner and hence passed a decree.3. The defendants pleaded that the house was the self-acquired property of the first defendant and that even if it formed part of the property inherited by her from her husband, the sale was for necessity binding on the reversioners. On both the points, the learned Subordinate Judg...
Salem Municipal Council Vs. S.V. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ217
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal and memorandum of objections arise from the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in O.S. No. 135 of 1951.2. The facts are. In Salem town there is a building, bearing door No. 34 in Arunachala Asari Street. It was constructed as a theatre in 1913 for use as a dramatic house and was later converted into a cinema house in 1926. This building originally belonged to Angappa Pillai and his nephew Velayudham Pillai the father of the respondent before us. Angappa Pillai was renting out the premises together with the machinery and furniture to Oriental Talkies at a daily rental of Rs. 20. In this Oriental Talkies Velayudham Pillai was a partner. In a family partition of the year 1943 this building fell to the share of Velayudham Pillai subject to the lease. Velayudham Pillai continued to be the lessor and has been receiving a rental of Rs. 600 per month for the building machinery and furniture. Out of the said rental of Rs. 600 a sum of Rs. 1...
Nagammal Vs. C.R. Govindarajulu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ286
Subrahmanyam, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed by the Third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in M.P. Nos. 2082 to 2084 of 1956 in Ejectment Suit No. 235 of 1953 on his file. The suit was instituted by the landlord against the tenant of a parcel of land in Komaleeswaranpet. An order for ejectment was passed in the suit on 9th. September, 1953. The tenant was given two months' time for surrendering vacant possession. The tenant then instituted O.S. No. 1948 of 1953 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the landlord was not entitled to an order for eviction. That suit was instituted under Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was dismissed on 27th January, 1955. The appeal preferred by the tenant against the decree dismissing the suit was transferred by this Court to the City Civil Court and has been dismissed by the City Civil Court on 26th April, 1957.2. When the landlord obtained the decree for...
P. Orr and Sons (Private), Ltd. Vs. their workmen (Engineering and Fou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ152Mad
V. Pattabhiramayya, J.1. This is an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of P. Orr. & Sons (Private), Ltd., Madras, and it was referred to this labour court for adjudication by G.O. Ms. No. 1469, I.L. & C., dated 23 April 1967. The point referred for adjudication as stated in the annexure to the said Government order is-Whether the dismissal of the following three workers is justified and to what relief they are entitled:(1) Govindaraman,(2) Ganesac, and(3) Thirunavukarasu.* * *4. On these contentions the following issues were settled for enquiry:(1) Whether the dismissal of Govindaraman, Ganesan and Thirunavukarasu was justified? (2) To what relief, if any, are these workers entitled?5. Though in their counter-statement the management had raised contentions to the effect that they did not admit the representative character of the union, that the reference of this dispute was without jurisdiction and that this dispute cannot be entertained by this Court, these cont...
Current Circulating Library, by Its Proprietor Lazarus Vs. Raja Velugo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ30
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition is the tenant of a portion of premises No. 187, Mount Road, Madras, which is a building owned by the Raja of Venkatagiri, the respondent. Some time in February, 1945, the premises now in question were let out to the petitioner by Messrs. Gokuldoss Jumnadoss & Co., who were the equitable mortgagees of some items of properties including the suit premises under a mortgage granted by the Raja of Venkatagiri. The admitted facts are that, in February, 1945, the petitioner obtained a lease of these premises from the equitable mortgagees under the terms mentioned in Exhibit R-I. The equitable mortgage was redeemed in 1946 but the petitioner was not disturbed in possession. He attorned to the owner, the Raja of Venkatagiri, who continued to collect the rent from the petitioner, treating him as his tenant. Some time in 1955, the Raja of Venkatagiri filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the petition...
In Re: Thangavelu Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1198
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision sought to be preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate, Vridhachalam, and confirmed by the Judicial District Magistrate of South Arcot in C. A. No. 263 of 1957.2. The facts are: Under the aegis of two persons convicted by the trial Court but acquitted by the appellate Court, viz., accused 1 and 2 and with the merits of which acquittal we are not concerned here, as no appeal has been preferred by the state, the three revision petitioners before us & a number of coolies were caught red-handed cutting and removing Karuvela trees in lorry loads.How these people came to be caught red-handed was as follows: P.W. 3 the Thotti of Sirunesslur on coming to know that the accused persons were cutting the Karuvela trees in the Eri Poramboke of Sirunesslur went there and found them with the aid of coolies cutting and arranging to take away the same in a lorry found later to bear No. MDH. 2031. P.W. 3 returned to the village an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »