Chennai Court February 1957 Judgments
K.M. Kokila and anr. Vs. K.M. Rajabather and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad470
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed on the Original Side of this Court in C.S. No. 407 of 1949, by Subba Rao, J. The first respondent is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for a partition of the properties which he alleged belonged to one Munuswami Pillai who died on 26th March, 1940, claiming to be his illegitimate son. The first defendant is the widow of the said Munuswami Pillai. The second and third defendants are his daughters. The fourth defendant was made a party as being in possession of the assets of the deceased. The first defendant, the widow, did not file any written statement. But a common written statement was filed by defendants 2, 3 and 4 in which the main pleas raised were that the plaintiff was not an illegitimate son of the deceased Munuswami entitled to a share of his property on the ground that the plaintiff's mother Manickammal was not in the exclusive keeping of the said Munuswami and (2) that the suit was barred by res judicata because of the...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Kokila and anr. Vs. K.M. Rajabather and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ128
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed on the Original Side of this Court in C.S. No. 407 of 1949, by Subba Rao, J. The first respondent is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for a partition of the properties which he alleged belonged to one Munuswami Pillai who died on 26th March, 1940, claiming to be his illegitimate son. The first defendant is the widow of the said Munuswami Pillai. The second and third defendants are his daughters. The fourth defendant was made a party as being in possession of the assets of the deceased. The first defendant, the widow, did not file any written statement. But a common written statement was filed by defendants 2, 3 and 4 in which the main pleas raised were that the plaintiff was not an illegitimate son of the deceased Munuswami entitled to a share of his property on the ground that the plaintiff's mother Manickammal was not in the exclusive keeping of the said Munuswami and (2) that the suit was barred by res judicat...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupathi, Rajah of Ramnad Vs. State of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad570
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner is the Rajah of Raminad and he files this petition in his capacity as the sole and hereditary trustee of the Ramanathapuram devasthanam and chatrams. The petitioner was the hereditary trustee of several devasthanams each of which owned estates which had been notified and taken over by the Government. The claim of the petitioner is that the compensation payable to the several institutions of which he is the trustee has not been calculated in accordance with law and that a much lesser sum than that which is legally due is being paid. The relief therefore which he seeks is the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the State of Madras' to calculate the compensation payable to the institutions under Sections 38 (2) and 54 (1) of the Act XXVI of 1948 by reference to the original rate unreduced by Act XXX of 1947 and to make payment thereof or in the alternative to take into account the compensation provided in Secti...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ganapathi Nadar and Sons Factory by Its Manager M.S. Shanmughasun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad616
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the managements of five handloom factories praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ directing the Industrial Tribunal, Madras from proceeding with an enquiry which has been referred to this body for adjudication. The complaint of the several petitioners is that the State Government who have been implead-ed as the first respondent in this petition transgressed their jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in referring for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal certain disputes which were said to exist between; them and the persons who they say are not their workmen. There were as many as seven establishments named in the reference between whom and the Dalavalpurain Workers' Union the dispute was said to exist, and the reference made was a single one. These petitioners have joined together and filed a single petition, invoking the jurisdiction of this cou...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ganapathi Nadar and Sons Factory by Its Manager M.S. Shanmughasun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ54
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the managements of five handloom factories praying for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition or other appropriate writ directing the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, from proceeding with an enquiry which has been referred to this body for adjudication. The complaint of the several petitioners is that the State Government who have been impleaded as the 1st respondent in this petition transgressed their jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in referring for adjudicating to the Industrial Tribunal certain disputes which were said to exist between them and the persons who they say are not their workmen. There were as many as seven establishments named in the reference between whom and the Dalavaipuram Workers' Union the dispute was said to exist, and the reference made was a single one. These petitioners have joined together and filed a single petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court un...
Tag this Judgment!Raja of Ramnad, Trustee, Ramanathapuram Devasthanam and Chatrams, by D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ145
ORDER1. The petitioner is the Raja of Ramnad and he files this petition in his capacity as the sole and hereditary trustee of the Ramanathapuram Devasthanam and Chatrams. The petitioner was the hereditary trustee of several de-vasthanams each of which owned estates which had been notified and taken over by the Government. The claim of the petitioner is that the compensation payable' to the several institutions of which he is the trustee has not been calculated in accordance with law and that a much lesser sum than that which is legally due is being paid. The relief, therefore, which he seeks is the issue of 'a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction directing the State of Madras ' to calculate the compensation payable to the institutions under Sections 38(2) and 54(1) of Act XXVI of 1948 by reference to the original rate unreduced by Act XXX of 1947 and to make payment thereof or in the alternative to take into account the compensation provided in Section 5(1) of Act XXX of 194...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarath Sayed Shamiah Sakkab Kadiri Thaikkal Rerepresented by Its Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ265
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Hazarath Sayed Shamian Sakkab Kadiri Thaikkal, for revising and setting aside the order of the District Munsif, Tanjore, in O.P. No. 43 of 1956 holding that such an Original Petition would lie and that it need not be filed as an Interlocutory Application in the ejectment suit.2. The facts were briefly these : The petitioner is the landlord in respect of the suit property, the respondent Ibrahim Sahib being the tenant. In a suit for ejectment filed by the landlord-petitioner against the tenant-respondent, O.S. No. 315 of 1950, for recovery of possession of the properties after demolishing the superstructures erected thereon, the parties entered into a compromise on 10th January, 1952, fixing a rent of Rs. 60 per month and giving the tenant a lease for twelve years, from 1st January, 1952 till 31st December, 1963, at that rate of rent, the tenant being directed to vacate the premises on 31st December, 1963 and the landlord being entitled...
Tag this Judgment!Joseph Sam Vs. Caltex India Ltd., Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad409; (1957)IILLJ272Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. This petition raises for consideration a very short but interesting point regarding the construction and scope of Section 51 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (XXXVI of 1947). 2. The petitioner Joseph Sam was a Depot operator under the employment of Messrs. Caltex India Ltd. (First respondent). While so, towards the end of October 1954, he was served with a notice of certain charges and directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation and as desired by him an oral enquiry was held by the management on 4-11-1954. The enquiring officer found the charges made out and on 1-12-1954 the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the first respondent. Against this order of dismissal the petitioner filed an appeal under' Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act which was taken on file and. heard by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Section 41 (2) under w...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. R.M.K. Viswanatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC601(Mad)
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below decreeing a suit for a declaration that the assessment of sales tax under the head 'railway charges' or freight is illegal and for a refund of a sum of Rs. 52-15-3.2. The plaintiff is a piece-goods merchant carrying on business in Tirunelveli. His business consisted in purchasing goods from Bombay and Ahmedabad and selling them in retail at Tirunelveli. For the year 1949-50, his gross turnover was nearly ten lakhs of rupees; but in respect of the turnover to the extent of Rs. 3,389-11-2 representing the railway charges or freight, he objected to the assessment, and it was in respect of that turnover that the suit for refund of the tax of Rs. 52-15-3 was filed.3. The claim was made under rule 5(1)(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, which provides that the tax under Section 3 or the notification under Section 6 (1) shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Tanjore Palace Devasthanam by Its Hereditary Trustee Raja Sri Rajaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ67
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This petition raises for consideration the point regarding the construction of the Madras Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948) which so far as I am aware has not yet come up for consideration before this Court.2. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the two Devasthanams managed by the Rajah of Tanjore. This petition has been filed to quash an order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, holding that 74.99 acres of land situated in the hamlet of Melveli Thottam forming part of village of Kasba Melveli Thottam was part of an inam estate which could validly be notified and taken over by Government under Act XXVI of 1948. The main village of Melveli Thottam included a hamlet which also went by the same name and it is common ground so far as this case is concerned that Melveli Thottam was the subject of an inam grant. What We are concerned with is the grant of two bits of land of an extent of 59.40 acres and 15.59 acres in the hamlet of Melveli Tho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »