Chennai Court July 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.
Gnanambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. Ramachandran (M.R.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ449Mad
Rajagopalan, J.1. The respondent, Ramachandran, was an employee of the petitioner. An industrial dispute between the management of the petitioner-company and its employees was referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act. During the pendency of these proceedings the management took disciplinary action against the respondent. The management held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the respondent should be dismissed for proved misconduct. On 16 June 1954, the management directed suspension of the respondent pending the contemplated dismissal, for which the sanction of the industrial tribunal was necessary under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 29 June 1954, the petitioner applied to the industrial tribunal for the requisite sanction. It was represented that that application has not yet been disposed of despite the lapse of about three years.2. On 21 October 1954, the respondent preferred an application to the prescribed statut...
Arumugam Solathirayar Vs. Ponnalagu Pandarar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad127; 1958CriLJ385; (1958)IMLJ6
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision which has been preferred against the acquittal by the Judicial Sub-Magistrate, Keeranur, in C.C. No. 638 of 1958.2. The case for the prosecution was that on 20th May, 1956 at about 7-30 a.m. near Mothudayanpati, the accused' armed with sticks, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting end causing hurt to Armada am Solagar, P.W. 1, and his men and in pursuance of that' common object, the nceuped committed the offence of rioting and in the course of the rioting; injuries were caused to P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6.3. This is a police prosecution; and in support of the prosecution case as many as 13 witnesses were examined. Out of these 13 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 are eye witnesses. P.Ws. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 were the injured persons. P.W. 9 is a servant of P.W. 7 and P.W. 13 turned hostile.4; The case for the accused was as follows: Accused 1 to 14, and 16 stated that they did not beat P.Ws. 1 to 3 an...
In Re: S.R.M.S. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ314
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Revision sought to be filed against the order made by the learned District Magistrate of South Arcot at Cuddalore in Cr.M.P. No. 31 of 1957, under Section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.2. The facts are :- The temple of Sri Patalisvaraswami, Tirupapuliyur, through its Executive Officer, obtained a certificate relating to the properties under consideration that they belong to the temple. The said certificate has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner in his proceedings bearing No. 14810 of 1956, after an opportunity was given to the petitioner before us to put forth his contentions, if any, while he and others were resisting and preventing the temple from taking possession of the properties. On obtaining the certificate, an application has been filed before the District Magistrate, Cuddalore, for execution of the same. Before the District Magistrate the petitioner herein contended that he has not been the trustee but that hi...
Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. Rasu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ93
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Palaniappa Chettiar, the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 162 of 1954 on the file of the District Munsif of Pudukottai, for revising and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif dismissing the suit with costs. The facts are briefly these.2. The suit was filed by the petitioner, a Nattukottai Chettiar, for recovering Rs. 274-8 from the respondents being the amount due on two promissory notes executed in his favour by the first and second respondents. The respondents contended that they really were not given the Rs. 250, the principal, under the two promissory notes, as pretended by the plaintiff and that this sum represented excess interest (over the 12 per cent per annum mentioned) not claimable under the present Acts giving relief regarding interest but collected by the Nattukottai Chettiar, the plaintiff, and ingeniously incorporated as two amounts lent under these promissory notes. There was no evidence rega...
A. St. Arunachalam Pillai, Proprietor, Vinayagar Transport Vs. Souther ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ1
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in Writ Petition No. 2 of 1956. The appellant is the proprietor of Sri Vinayagar Transports, Woriyur, Tiruchirappalli. He held a permit to ply his bus M.S.P. 1519 on the route Tiruchirapalli Mainguard Gate to Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction via Palakarai and Round Tana. On the 19th July, 1954, he applied to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, for variation of the route so as to ply between Mainguard Gate and Golden Rock via Palakarai, Round Tana, Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction and retrace again to Round Tana and thence to Golden Rock. The variation was sought mainly on the ground that it would provide direct transport facilities from Golden Rock to Tiruchirappalli Railway Junction. The Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirappalli, notified this application for variation and called for representations. Messrs. Southern Roadways, Limited, a limited company doing motor transport business on a...
P.D. Viswanatha Reddiar's estate by P.D. Narayayanaswami Reddiar Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ77
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of remand made by the learned District Judge of Chingleput in regard to the concurrent order of eviction made by the Rent Controller, Chingleput, and the appellate authority, the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.2. The facts are : The petitioner, landlord, before me, filed an application before the Rent Controller for eviction of the respondent, tenant, from his house on the two grounds permissible under the Act cited above, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and that he (landlord) required the premises for his bona fide occupation. The tenant could be evicted under either of these grounds. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the tenant was plainly guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent. Therefore, they ordered eviction of the tenant. In the revision provided under Section 12-B of Act, viz., empowering the District ...
Muthukamakshi Chettiar Vs. Shanmuga Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad290; (1957)2MLJ412
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is filed by the decree-holder who obtained his decree in O.S. No. 207 of 1949 against seven defendants, personally against defendants 1 and 2 and as against other defendants to the extent of the family properties in their hands. The decree was obtained in March, 1950. In execution of that decree the decree-holder filed an E.P. No. 488 of 1952 to attach the 2nd defendant's half share in a partnership called ' Nagarathnam andSons.' According to the decree-holder, that business was carried on by the 2nd defendant and one Kadarkari Nadar in partnership. The latter has been impleaded as the 8th respondent in the execution petition. It is obvious that he is not a necessary party to the execution. But I am told that because notice has to go to the other partners under Clause (4) of Rule 49 of Order 21 in case the assets of the partnership have to be charged Kadarkari Nadar was impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings. It is only that ...
C.K. Chinnappa Chetty (Died) and ors. Vs. the Joint Family Firm of K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad744
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This an appeal filed by the defendant against an order on his application filed under Order XXI, Rule 89. The property in question Was attached and brought to sale on 21-7-1955. On that date, it was sold and purchased by the second respondent, the first respondent being the decree-holder. The next day after the court sale, that is, on 22-7-1955, the judgment debtor who is the present appellant sold this property to one Ramaswami Aiyar for a sum of Rs. 4000. As purchaser, Ramaswami Aiyar filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, on 25-7-1955 after depositing the full amount due to the decree-holder.While that application was pending, apparently on the advice of the judgment debtor's lawyer that that application would not be competent, the judgment debtor filed another application, E. A. No, 558 of 1955 on 17-8-1955 accompanied by the necessary deposit of the money. As the judgment debtor filed that application, it was considered that Ramaswami Aiyar's applic...
Ramalingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad228; (1957)2MLJ382
1. The only substantial question in this appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. No. 9 of 1951 is whether a Hindu widow who becomes entitled to her husband's share in joint family property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act can challenge an alienation made by the other member of the family who was a coparcener with her husband. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff first respondent is the widow of one Subramania Pillai who died in August, 1942. He was survived by, besides his widow, the plaintiff, his undivided son, the first defendant, and two unmarried daughters, defendants 2 and 3. On 13th August, 1950, the first defendant alienated item 1 of Schedule A of the plaint, a family house, to the fourth defendant for an alleged consideration, of Rs. 10,000. In 1951 the widow filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the property set out in Schedul...
C.V. Krishnamoorthy and anr. Vs. Chettypunyam Devanadhaswami Devasthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ411
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for scaling down of a usufructuary mortgage under Sections 9-A and 19-A of Act IV of 1938. That mortgage was Exhibit A-1 of the-year 1931 executed by the deceased father of the petitioners (Appellants) to the trustees of a Devasthanam for a sum of Rs. 500. That was not an amount advanced in cash, but the mortgage was a renewal of an earlier mortgage Exhibit A-2 of the year 1925 executed by the petitioner's father to the same Devasthanam, at a time when he was not a trustee. But by the time the mortgage in question came to be executed, the petitioner's father was himself one of thetrustees. It is also true that the liability under the earlier mortgage Exhibit A-2 itself was in discharge of a liability owing by one Srinivasachari to the Devasthanam. The learned District Judge thought that the mortgage in question was a breach of trust and therefore it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »