Chennai Court September 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.
S. Jayam Sunder Rajaratnam Vs. K. Muthuswami Kangani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ194
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. In this appeal the defendant in Original Suit No. 258 of 1951 is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,500 from the defendant on the basis of a foreign judgment and decree which the respondent admittedly obtained in the District Court of Nuwaraeliya, Holden at Hatton, Ceylon, on the 26th of October, 1948. The suit in the Ceylon Court was filed on a promissory note executed by the father of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 17th of April, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 3,500,payable with interest at 18 per cent, per annum. The defendant who is the appellant before us was ex parte in that suit and, according to the procedure obtaining in Ceylon, a decree nisi was passed after taking the evidence of the plaintiff and finally the decree was made absolute after notice of the decree nisi had been served on the defendant and the latter had failed to appear in spite ...
Rm. P. Kp. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. V.S. Alias S.V.V. Subramanian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad142; (1957)2MLJ537
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal must be dismissed in limine on a ground which we shall presently state. It arose out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devokattai, O.S. No. 130 of 1951, to recover a sum of Rs. 7,700 as damages for malicious arrest of the plaintiff by the defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present appeal. Pending the appeal the defendant, who was the sole respondent, died and his undivided son was brought on record as legal representative and made the second respondent.2. It is now well established that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona is part of the law of this countiy except in so far as it has been modified by statute. In Rustovji Dorabji v. Nurse : (1921)40MLJ173 a Full Bench of this Court ruled that in a suit for malicious prosecution, when a defendant dies, the right to sue does not survive. The principle of this Full Bench ruling will certainly apply to...
M. Lingappa Chetty Vs. President, Ammanarkoil Panchayat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ161
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner desired to instal an oil engine within the area of Ammanarkoil Panchayat, Pudupet Post, Tirupattur Taluk. He made his application for this purpose on 22nd March, 1954. The first formal reply that he got to this application was on 19th January, 1955 when an order, dated 10th January, 1955, refusing the grant of the licence he applied for was intimated to him.2. The question that the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged turns on the legal effect of Section 96(3) of Madras Act X of 1950, the Panchayat Act. Section 96(1) enacts the provision for applications being made for the issue of a licence or permission under the Act or the rules or by-laws made under it. There is no controversy that the terms of Section 96(1) were complied with by the petitioner when he made his application for the installation of the oil engine on 22nd March, 1954. Sub-section (3) of Section 96 enacts:Save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licen...
S. T. Velu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad534; [1958]33ITR463(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This is a petition seeking the quashing of an order of the Income-tax Officer, dated February 24, 1956, by which the assessment of the petitioner was revised under section 35 of the Income-tax Act.The petitioner was a non-resident and for the assessment year 1951-52, an order was passed computing his income at Rs. 11,703 and levying income-tax at the rate appropriate to an assessee who had not opted under section 17(1) of the Act. The sum due in respect of the tax was ascertained as Rs. 2,562-8-0 and notice of demand under section 29 was issued and the same was duly paid.On January 10, 1956, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to the assessee pointing out that in working out the tax liability for 1951-52 in the relevant assessment order super-tax and surcharge on super-tax had not been included by mistake, which he said was apparent from the assessment order. He, therefore, intimated that he proposed to revise the assessment under section 35 to include thos...
Bombay Prakash Bhavan Vs. P.K. Narayanan, Cleaner, by Madras City Hote ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ619
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The legality of an order passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal on an application under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, is the subject-matter of this petition for the issue of writ of certiorari.2. The petitioner here is the management of a hotel in Madras. The first respondent was a clearner employed in this establishment. There had been some disputes between the workmen and the management previous to the incidents which led to this application under Section 23 and they were pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of this dispute, the management found that the workman, the first respondent here, was guilty of an act of misconduct. He was given notice of the details of this misconduct charged against him on 29th July, 1955 and was placed under suspension pending the enquiry into this charge. The enquiry was actually held on 2nd August, 1955. The result of the enquiry was that themanagement...
Gnanambikai Mills Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Madras) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ225Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The management of the Gnanambikai Mills, Ltd., Vellakkinar, Coimbatore, are the petitioners and they seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash an order of this tribunal, dated 20 July 1956, being one passed under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated to understand the points raised in this petition.3. The petitioner is a textile mill engaged in spinning cotton and other yarn. It had a number of workmen employed in the roving department as doffers. The events with which the dispute before the tribunal and this petition are concerned happened on 23 May 1953. One Ramachandran who was a doffer came to the mills on the morning of 23 instant and he obtained an endorsement on MB card that he was given no work on that date, the words of the endorsement bei...
S.V.S. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ14
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs for partition and possession of their share of the properties left by one Muhammad Ismail Rowther who died on 3rd January, 1948, at an advanced age. Nearly a year before his death on 1st February, 1947, Muhammad Ismail executed a deed of gift conveying his properties to his two sons who were defendants. in 'the suit. Besides these two sons Muhammad Ismail had two other daughters, Hamida Bi and Ayisha. The elder of these daughters Hamida Bi died on 28th September, 1948, leaving besides her husband a daughter. Hamida Bi's husband is the plaintiff in the suit while his minor daughter by Hamida Bibi is the 2nd plaintiff. The other daughter of Muhammad Ismail Ayisha Bibi has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant. 2. Substantially the case of the plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant, who naturally supported the plaintiffs by filing a statement accepting the plaint allegations, was. that the...
B.N. Chowdappa Chettiar, Proprietor of Sri Lakshminarayana Rice Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ630
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs of certiorari seeking cancellation of orders passed by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Kariamangalam in Salem District relating to the issue of licences for the continuance of an electric motor and oil engine to work the petitioner's rice mill within the limits of the Pan-chayat.2. Chowdappa Chettiar, the petitioner, is carrying on business as a rice miller at Kariamangalam under the name of Sri Lakshminarayana Rice Mills. In or about 1942 when the Panchayat of the Kariamangalam was governed by the provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act the petitioner started the mill and obtained licences for working it with power. Though the resolution of the local authority permitted the petitioner to install both an oil engine as well as an electric motor to run his mill he originally installed only an oil engine. In or about 1943 an ele-tric motor of 25 horse-power was installed in addition and between the years 1...
R. Ramakrishna Iyer Vs. Municipal Council by Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ348
Ramaswami, J.1. The point involved in this Second Appeal, which arises from a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is exempt from taking out any licence and paying any licence fees for the vegetarian light refreshment stall in Tirunelveli railway junction platform, is that where the premises of a stall are under the control and occupation of the Central Government, Sections 244 and 249 of the District Municipalities Act stand in the way of levy of any fee. In a recent decision of this Court in Alangavaran Chetty v. Municipal Council of Pollachi : (1957)2MLJ56 it was held as follows:The exemption granted by Section 244 of the District Municipalities Act from its licensing provisions in Section 249 is only in favour of the activities of the Government and of the statutory bodies named in that section. Running a tea-stall even though on a railway platform under licence from the railway authorities, requires a licence from the Municipality under the District Municipalities Act. Though...
The Special Tahsildar, Harijan Welfare, Land Acquisition Collector Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad214; (1958)1MLJ327
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections arise out of an acquisition of an area of 2-52 acres out of a block of 7 acres odd in the village of Vinayakatheru in Tanjore District belonging to the respondent before us, for the purpose of providing house-sites for Harijans. The notification under Section 4 relating to the acquisition was published on 31st July, 1951. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 750 per acre mainly on the basis of a sale deed, Exhibit B-1, dated 23rd June, 1948, under which land was conveyed at Rs. 600 per acre. The claimant, who was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him asked for a reference to Court, which was made: The learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam who dealt with the reference enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000 per acre. The claimant also prayed for the award of a sum of Rs. 1,500, being the cost of putting up a fence to mark off the rest of his land from the acquired port...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »