Chennai Court April 1957 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. A. Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad166; 1959CriLJ484
1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Madras against the acquittal by the learned Special Judge of Chingleput in C. C. No. 8 of 1955.2. The case for the Prosecution is : The complainant Rajabadar, P.W. 2 is the owner of a tea stall in the bazaar road in Saidapet, a Suburb of the City of Madras. He has been carrying on this tea stall for the last ten years. P.W.2 is the owner of a house in the same street bearing door No. 111, worth Rs. 5000/- P. W. 2 was getting from his tea stall business a monthly income of Rs. 100.3. Five years ago P. W. 2 had installed a radio set in the tea shop. In fact in the City of Madras such radios which are played practically during the working hours have become the standard equipment. P. W. 2 was taking out licence for two years and was using the radio with the help of the electric connection from a neighbouring house, But later that neighbour is said to have refused to give, the electric connection and the radio also is said to have gone out of o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mahalinga thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad521; 1959CriLJ1441
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a petition filed against the order 'made by the learned Sub Magistrate of Sattur in P. R. C. Nos. 2 and 5 of 1957 and M. P. No. 105 of 1957.2. The facts are: The Sub-Inspector of Police Elayirampannai, filed a charge sheet against three persons for offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. It was taken on file as P. R. C. No. 1 of 1957 on 14-2-1957. Subsequently one Muthurakkammal wife of the deceased, gave a private complaint implicating along with these three persons another Ayyappa Naicker with respect to the same murder. Her sworn statement was recorded and the case was taken on file as P. R. C. No. 2 of 1957 against four persons under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 109 and under Section 449 I. P. C.3. The advocate for the accused filed a memo to the effect that since there cannot be two separate enquiries against the same accused in respect of the same criminal transaction, P. R. C. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1957 may be cl...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasan Vs. Padmasini Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad622; (1957)2MLJ11
1. This is a petition filed by one Srinivasan for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in E.P. No. 157 of 1955, in O.P.. No. 29 of 1955, holding that dearness allowance will be part of his salary, and that, therefore, though he was drawing only a basic pay of Rs. 95 as he was drawing a. dearness allowance of Rs. 77-11-0 in addition, the rule in the Civil Procedure Code prohibiting the attachment of salaries below Rs. 100 per month would not be of avail to him as he was really drawing an excess of Rs. 72-11-0 per month and in. that view directing attachment of Rs. 32-8-0 per month was lawful and justifiable. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the lower Court erred grievously in holding that "dearness allowance" which, is " only a temporary addition to pay ", to meet the increased cost of living, would constitute part of a man's salary. Mr. P. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife, urged vigorously tha...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Balakrishnan Nair Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad769
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. in W.P. No 36 of 1957, filed by the appellant in the following circumstances, The appellant was appointed in 1941 as a lower division clerk in the office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board at Madras. In July 1944 he was transferred and posted as lower division inspector In the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Kozikode, South Malabar. In September 1951 when the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was abolished and in its stead the department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments came into existence, he became a permanent lower division clerk acting as upper division clerk in the department. He then served in many posts till he was eventually posted as acting upper division inspector under the Assistant Commissioner, Palghat by an order dated 1st June 1956. On 16th August 1956 he was placed under suspension. Charges of misconduct were framed against him and the tribunal for discipl...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Odayar and ors. Vs. Raja Muhammad Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ402
Rajagopalan, J.1. In proceedings in execution of the decree, O.S. No. 3 of 1919, to which the respondent was not a party, there was an order for delivery of possession of the properties, and possession was delivered to the petitioners on 12th June, 1955. The respondent preferred an application on 11th July, 1955 to the District Court, W. Tanjore, under the provision of Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code, for re-delivery of the properties. This application was eventually numbered as E.A. No. 19 of 1957, and it will be more convenient to refer to that application by that number E.A. No. 19 of 1957.2. When E.A. No. 19 of 1957 was presented to the District Court on nth July, 1955, it was ordered on 19th July, 1955 to be returned for the rectification of certain defects. The defects pointed out were:(1) cause-title is incorrect ; and (a) since E.A. No. 42 of 1955, put in by the petitioner has been dismissed on 13th July, 1955, it should be stated how this application is maintainable. ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Balakrishnan Nair Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ280
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in Writ Petition No. 36 of 1957, filed by the appellant in the following circumstances. The appellant was appointed in 1941 as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board at Madras. In July, 1944, he was transferred and posted as Lower Division Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Kozhikode, South Malabar. In September, 1951, when the Hindu Religious Endowments Board was abolished and in its stead the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments came into existence, he became a permanent Lower Division Clerk acting as Upper Division Clerk in the Department. He then served in many posts till he was eventually posted as acting Upper Division Inspector under the Assistant Commissioner, Palghat, by an order, dated 1st June, 1956. On 16th August, 1956, he was placed under suspension. Charges of misconduct were framed ag...
Tag this Judgment!V. Srinivasan Vs. Padmasini Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ305
Panchapkesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Srinivasan for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in E.P. No. 157 of 1955, in O.P.. No. 29 of 1955, holding that dearness allowance will be part of his salary, and that, therefore, though he was drawing only a basic pay of Rs. 95 as he was drawing a. dearness allowance of Rs. 77-11-0 in addition, the rule in the Civil Procedure Code prohibiting the attachment of salaries below Rs. 100 per month would not be of avail to him as he was really drawing an excess of Rs. 72-11-0 per month and in. that view directing attachment of Rs. 32-8-0 per month was lawful and justifiable. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that the lower Court erred grievously in holding that 'dearness allowance' which, is ' only a temporary addition to pay ', to meet the increased cost of living, would constitute part of a man's salary. Mr. P. Narayanaswami, learned Counsel for the respondent-wife,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. S. Kalayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ463
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal against the judgment of Raghava Rao, J., in A.S. No. 128 of 1949 is whether the temple known as the Sree Subramaniaswami temple in the village of Vadamadurai in Tiruvallur Taluk in the district of Chinglept is a temple which falls within the definition of ' temple ' in Section 9(12) of Madras Act (II of 1927.) That definition is as follows:Temple' means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship.2. The question arose on account of the action taken by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The hereditary trustee of the temple filed a petition under Section 84(2) of the Act for a declaration that the said temple is a private temple not falling within the definition of 'temple' in the Act. The learned District Judge of Chingleput held that the institut...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.K. Adimoolam Chettiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC741(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J1. These are two connected revision cases which are preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Vellore, in C. C. Nos. 177 and 178 of 1955, and which were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge of North Arcot at Vellore in C. A. Nos. 178 and 179 of 1956.2. The short facts are :-The revision petitioner, P.K. Adimoolam Chettiar, is a registered dealer. He is doing business in rice, paddy and groundnut in Polur on his own account and besides this he is a partner in the Gajendra Rice Mills at Kommandal, which is about four miles from Polur. On the 14th February, 1953, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer visited the Gajendra Rice Mills. Natesa Pillai, the clerk of this Adimoolam Chettiar for his individual business, was writing some accounts. The accused was not there. The clerk produced seven account books and gave a statement. In that statement Natesa Pillai has mentioned that he was the clerk of Adimoolam Ch...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Subbiah Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad202; (1958)2MLJ611
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner applies under Articles 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Prohibition to restrain the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, from proceeding with the adjudication of the industrial dispute rtlgistered as I. D. No. 16 of 1957 on its file. The industrial dispute was taken on file by the Industrial Tribunal on a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That reference being administrative in its scope, is outside the purview of correction by the issue of a writ of certiorari.Since an industrial dispute has been referred & the Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to take up the enquiry, there can be no writ of prohibition issued at this stage. It is for the Industrial Tribunal to decide, in the first instance, whether there was an industrial dispute at all. In deciding that question, it may be necessary to decide whether the plea of the petitioner is well founded that the workers are not really 'workmen' as defined by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »