Chennai Court April 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.
In Re: Paramount Films of India Ltd., Madras Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad615
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside a reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. It has been consistently held by this Court that an order under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act is only administrative in its scope and is therefore outside the purview of correction by the issue of a writ of certiorari. There cannot be a writ of prohibition either directed to the Industrial Tribunal. It is open to the petitioner to raise the question he has raised here, that there was in law no industrial dispute at all for adjudication, even as a preliminary issue, by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal has to decide such a jurisdictional issue in the first instance. If the Industrial Tribunal arrives at a wrong decision, the aggrieved person will be entitled to challenge the validity of such a decision by an application for the issue of a writ of ce...
Chavithianathan Nadar Singarajan Nadar Vs. Mayhavadiyan Nadar Chandana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad621
1. This is an application to excuse the delay in filing a second appeal. Actually the question which falls for decision is whether the second appeal has not been filed in time. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it must he deemed to be filed in time because of the following facts. The appeal was disposed of by the lower appellate. Court on 7-5-1124 M. E. On 20-5-1124 the petitioner made an application for certified copies of decree and judgment. On 22-11-1124 stamp papers were called for and on the 25th the stamp papers were furnished by the petitioner. 7-12-1124 was the date fixed for the petitioner to take delivery of the certified Copies. Meanwhile on 1-8-1124, the petitioner had filed a review application. That was pending for nearly seven years and it was disposed of finally on 28-6-1956. On 9th July 1956 the second appeal was filed.2. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Travantore Limitation Regulation, VL of 1100, in computing the period of limitation presc...
Chavithianathan Nadar Singarajan Nadar Vs. Mayhavadiyan Nadar Chandanm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ165
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in filing a Second Appeal. Actually the question which falls for decision is whether the Second Appeal has not been filed in time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it must be deemed to be filed in time because of the following facts. The appea was disposed of by the lower appellate Court on 7th May, 1124 M.E. On 20-5-1124 the petitioner made an application for certified copies of decree and Judgment. On 22nd November, 1924 stamp papers were called for and on the 25th the stamp papers were furnished by the petitioner. 7th December, 1124 was the date fixed for the petitioner to take delivery of the certified copies. Meanwhile on 1st August, 1124, the petitioner had filed a review application. That was pending for nearly seven years and it was disposed of finally on 28th June, 1956. On 9th July, 1956 the second appeal was filed.2. Under Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Travancore Limitation Regulation,...
In Re: Paramount Films of India, Ltd., Madras Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ357
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside a reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. It has been consistently held by this Court that an order under Section 10(r)(c) of the Act is only administrative in its scope and is therefore outside the purview of correction by the issue of a writ of certiorari. There cannot be a writ of prohibition either directed to the Industrial Tribunal. It is open to the petitioner to raise the question he has raised here, that there was in law no industrial dispute at all for adjudication, even as a preliminary issue, by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal has to decide such a jurisdictional issue in the first instance; If the Industrial Tribunal arrives at a wrong decision, the aggrieved person will be entitled to challenge the validity of such a decision by an application for the issue of a writ of ce...
T.P. Chandra Vs. the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad668; (1957)2MLJ9
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, dated 1st. November 1955. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. Messrs. Kemp and Co. Ltd., the contesting respondent in this appeal, is a company with its head office at Bombay. It has a branch at Madras. The petitioner was appointed as the Branch Manager of the Madras Branch of the company sometime in 1950. The appellant's services were terminated with effect from 23th August, 1953.He was given a month's salary in lieu of notice and an additional payment ex gratia. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishment Act XXXVI of 1947. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the company that the appeal was not competen...
The State of Madras Vs. M. Ramakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad758
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao J. in W. P. No. 840 of 1951 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order to quash the order of the Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and "Charitable Endowments dated 19th October 1951 appointing one C. Subramania Chetti as a trustee of Sri Parthasarathiswami Devastanam, Triplicane, in the vacancy caused by the expiry of the term of the trustee. Sri V. Ranganadham Chetti. The petitioners are two Thengalai worshippers interested in the said temple.2. Sri Parthasarathiswami temple is a famous and ancient vaishnavite temple in Triplicane in Madras city. The administration of the temple has been in accordance with a scheme framed by this Court in C. S. No. 527 of 1924. The scheme inter alia provides that the management, and affairs of the temple shall be carried on by a body of dharmakarthas under the supervision and control of a Board of Supervision. The dharm...
N. Devasahayam Vs. State of Madras, by Secretary, Home Department and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ38
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These petitions raise for consideration very difficult questions as to the construction of several orders of Government in relation to the constitution of the judicial service in this State subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution and the validity of the orders issued by the State Government relating to the seniority among the classes of officers constituting that service.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 is a Judicial District Magistrate who challenges an order passed by the Government in May, 1956, altering to his prejudice the seniority accorded to him by orders of Government issued in 1951 and confirmed by them in 1954. W. P. Nos. 1353 and 1354 of 1956 have been filed by the officers who have been benefited by the order impugned in W.P. No. 1131 of 1956 and these seek to question the validity of the appointment of the petitioner and of another Judicial District Magistrate situated like him by the issue of writs of quo warranto....
S. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. P.S. Palani Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ243
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar the appellant in W.A. No. 56 of 1956 had a permit which authorised him to run a bus M.D.J. 971 between Vellore and Tiruvannamalai. On 1st December, 1953 the Regional Transport Officer, Vellore, varied the conditions of the permit which Krishnaswamy Mudaliar held so as to enable him to run the bus up to Thanipedi. In effect this gave him an extended route of 20 miles. Similarly Kumaraswami the appellant in W.A. No. 57 of 1956 held a permit which enabled him to operate bus No. M.D.J. 1012 between Vellore and Tiruvannamalai. On 15th January, 1954 the Regional Transport Officer, Vellore extended the scope of the permit so as to enable the bus to be plied along a further stretch of eleven miles to Thandrampet. Being aggrieved by the extensions which the Regional Transport Officer had granted to these two individuals one Pachia Pillai moved the State Government to revise the orders of the Regional Transport Officer. The Government dismissed the r...
The State of Madras, Presented by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ252
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Subba Rao, J. in W.P. No. 840 of 1951 which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order to quash the order of the Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, dated 19th October, 1951, appointing one C. Subramaniam Chetty as a Trustee of Sri Parthasarathi Swami Devasthanam, Triplicane, in the vacancy caused by the expiry of the term of the trustee, Sri V. Ranganadham Chetty. The petitioners are two Thengalai worshippers interested in the said temple.2. Sri Parthasarathi Swami Temple is a famous and ancient Vaishnavite temple in Triplicane in Madras City. The administration of the temple has been in accordance with a scheme framed by this Court in CS. No. 527 of 1924. The scheme inter alia provides that the management and affairs of the temple shall be carried on by a body of dharmakarthas under the supervision and control of a Board o...
T.P. Chandra Vs. the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ352
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, dated 1st November, 1955. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. Messrs. Kemp and Co. Ltd, the contesting respondent in this appeal, is a company with its head office at Bombay. It has a branch at Madras. The petitioner was appointed as the Branch Manager of the Madras Branch of the Company some time in 1950. The appellant's services were terminated with effect from 28th August, 1953. He was given a month's salary in lieu of notice and an additional payment ex gratia. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (XXXVI of 1947). A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the company that the appeal was not com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »