Chennai Court July 1957 Judgments
Kaleswari Handloom Factory by Proprietor, P.M.S. Guruswami Nadar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ589
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The main question that arises for consideration in each of these applications, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition, is the same and they can be disposed of by a single order. Each of the petitioners is the proprietor of what has been styled a Handloom factory. Varying numbers of weavers work for the petitioners. Disputes arose between the Management and the weavers in seven such factories including those of the five petitioners. Conciliation proceedings failed, and on 20th July, 1955, the Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, under Section 10(i)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the following disputes for adjudication as industrial disputes:Whether the wage cut made in November, 1954, should be restored and if so, from what date?The fixation of the number of festival holidays.2. Four of the petitioners filed W.P. No. 555 of 1955 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reference order...
Tag this Judgment!Daivasigamani Naicker Vs. Trustees of Pachaiapp's Charities, T.S. Nata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ91
Ramaswami, J.1. The short point for determination in both Courts below was whether the defendants were entitled to protection under the City Tenants Protection Act.2. The case for the defendants was that they and their ancestors have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since 1910 and hence they were entitled to protection under the Act.3. The scope of the City Tenants Protection Act may now be examined. That Act is not intended to confer benefit on all kinds of tenants in the city or at all times. The Act applies only to those tenancies created before 1921. Secondly it gives protection to those tenants who have constructed buildings on other's lands. The Madras City Tenants Protection Act as the Preamble states is thus intended to give protection to tenants who in many parts of the City of Madras had constructed buildings on other's lands in the hope that they would not be evicted so long as they pay a fair rent for the land. Therefore, we have got ...
Tag this Judgment!India Tyre and Rubber Co. (India) (Private) Ltd. Vs. their Workmen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ506Mad; (1958)IMLJ360
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner company manufactures and 'Bella tyres, among other rubber goods, in India. It has its head office at Bombay. One of its branch offices is at Madras with jurisdiction over the territorial area known as Madras district. The district extends over areas which lie outside the State, in Kerala, Mysore and Andhra Pradesh. The sub-depots at Ernakulam, Bangalore and Vijayawada are within the district of Madras.2. On the recommendation of the Tariff Commission in 1953 the Government of India ordered a reduction in the sale price of tyres by 10 per cent. The Tariff Commission pointed out in its report that the proportion of administration, selling and distribution expenses of the petitioner company was high, when compared with such charges incurred by other companies manufacturing and selling tyres in India. The petitioner company reorganized its methods of business, which resulted in a reduction in the amount of office work to be done in the Madras office. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rajangam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad523; 1958CriLJ1323
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision sought to be preferred against the order of the learned District Magistrate of Tanjore in C. R. P. No. 11 of 1957, setting aside the order dismissing the complaint in C, C. No. 448 of 1957 under Section 203, Cr.PC by the Second Class Magistrate, Tiruvayaru.2. The facts are : Dharmaraja Bapu Reddiar filed a private complaint against two persons for an offence under Section 498, I, P.C. This complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 23 of 1957. Nino witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. Then the enquiry was posted for the examination of the accused on 29-3-1957. On that date the complainant was absent. The complaint was dismissed under Section 259, Gr. P.C.Then the complainant on the same facts filed a second complaint which was numbered as C.C. No. 448 of 1957. The Sub-Magistrate discussed the evidence already taken on the prior complaint and taking into consideration certain facts appearing in the case-diary it will be remembered th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. the President, District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ406
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Under the scheme formulated by the Government to relieve unemployment among the educated classes, Local Boards were encouraged to establish schools in villages which would provide employment for teachers. One of the schools so established was at Kunnangalpalayam in Palladam taluk in Coimbatore District. The sanctioned strength of that school was one teacher. On 13th March, 1955, the President of the District Board, Coimbatore, appointed the petitioner to that post, and the petitioner took charge of his post on 18th March,1955.2. On 15th June, 1955 the Junior Deputy Inspector of Schools, Palladam, inspected the school. He recorded certain irregularities and recommended the removal of the petitioner from his office. Apparently the District Education Officer was also of the same view. On receipt of the report and recommendations of the Educational authorities the President of the District Board issued his order dated 2nd August, 1955, the relevant portion of which r...
Tag this Judgment!E.C. Richard Vs. Forest Range Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ52; (1957)2MLJ624
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is preferred by the first accused In C.C. No. 2023 of 1956, on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Mettupalayam. The present petitioner and five others were put up for trial before the Magistrate for an offence under Section 21 (h) of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, read with Rules 7 (1), (2) and (8) of the Game Licence Rules, for having shot a female and an immature male deer without horns within the reserve forest of Mettupalayam range. All the accused were convicted of the offence with which they stood charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each by the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Magistrate acquitted accused 2 to 6 but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the first accused as he is stated to have shot a female deer and one male deer without horns contrary to the Gaming Rules in the Nilgiris area.2. The main evidence against the petitioner consists in the statement made by him to P.W. 1, Forest Range Officer who w...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. M.B. Buhari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ387
Somasundaram, J.1) This is an appeal by the State against the order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in C.C. No. 4324 of 1956.2. The respondents are charged under Section 7(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Section 4 (1) of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947, The circumstances under which the prosecution was launched are these.3. Under the directions from the Deputy Director of Commerce P. W, 4 went to the shop of the respondents and purchased one tin of Vanaspathi which was called Lion Brand. It was sent) to P.W. 2, the Government analyst. It was a two pound tin and the price was Rs. 2-8-0. On analysis it is stated the oil did not conform to the specifications laid down in the rules framed under Or. 4 (1) of the Vegetable Oil Products Control Order, 1947. Stocking, therefore, of such commodity for sale is liable to be dealt with under Section 7 (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, Act X of 1955.4. under Section 4 (1) of the Vegetable Oil Produc...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) (by General Manager, Southern Railway) Vs. Shanmu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ668Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the Union of India represented by the General Manager of the Southern Railway against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli in O.S. No. 294 of 1951 and confirmed by the learned District Judge of Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 396 of 1953.2. The plaintiff Shanmugham was appointed as a sepoy or watchman in the watch and ward department in Tiruchirappalli Junction in 1947.3. On 12 January 1948 the Assistant Station Superintendent brought to the notice of the Superintendent, Watch and Ward, that this Shanmugham, while a surprise check was made on 12-15 hours on 7 January 1948, was found sleeping at his post; see Ex. B. 1.4. Thereupon the superiors of this watchman citing the report received called upon him to explain why he neglected his duty by being found sleeping when on duty at 12-15 hours on the night of 7 January 1948; see Ex. A. 1.5. Then this Shanmugham sent an explanation through proper channel t...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatammal and anr. Vs. Muthukrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ623
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This S.R. is sought to be presented as a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against an order dismissing O.P. No. 583 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for non-payment of Court-fee within the time allowed after refusing leave to the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis.2. On this the office has raised an objection as to how a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable against an order rejecting the Original Petition for non-payment of Court-fee.3. On this point there are two decisions of our High Court, namely, one by Pan-chapakesa Ayyar, J., in Bommi Setti Ramayamma, In re (1954) 1 M.L.J. 544 , and the other by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., in Munian v. Kesava Pandithan (1955) 1 M.L.J. 452.4. In Bommi Setti Ramayamma, In re (1954) 1 M.L.J. 544 , Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., held following the decision in Satyanarayanacharyulu v. Ramalingam : AIR1952Mad86 to which he was a party that where after a petition for leave to sue as a p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Sevuga Moopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad750; 1957CriLJ1298; (1957)2MLJ30
ORDERRamaswami, J. 1. The point of law taken is that the prosecufion evidence being against all the accused and having been disbelieved with regard to some cannot be believed with reference to others: Vide Piare Dusadh v. Emperor and Shanbagaperumal Naicker v. Emperor : AIR1940Mad279 and Venkataratnam v. Ramasasrulu 1939 MWN 1256 (C) and any conviction, based on such evidence is illegal and unjust. But it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Nisar Ali v. State of U. P. : 1957CriLJ550 , that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India; nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called 'a mandatory rule ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »