Chennai Court January 1958 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: K.G. Jagannathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad333; 1958CriLJ903; (1958)IMLJ242
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 121 of the Railways Act.2. The accused is said to have got down from the train at Mambalam and when the ticket was demanded he is said to have got annoyed and refused to show the ticket. He was subsequently handed over to the railway sainik. Two witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution who speak to the above facts. The second witness says that after refusing to show the ticket the accused went into the station master's room and the ticket examiner handed him over to the sainik.Even then he refused to show the ticket. The first witness was cross-examined as to whether he knew that the accused had luggage. Immediately an enquiry was conducted by the special Honorary Presidency Magistrate at the station itself and a judgment was pronounced convicting the petitioner.3. Two questions arise in this case. One Is whether on the facts disclosed it amounts to an offence u...
Ponnusami Nadar Vs. Athi Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ110
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A.S. No. 119 of 1954 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Srivaikuntam in O.S. No. 389 of 1951.2. The suit property is stated to have originally belonged to one Manuel Nadar. This Manuel Nadar had a son by name Gabriel Nadar who sold the suit property to one Isaac who mortgaged the same to the plaintiff's father under Exhibit A-4, dated 28th April, 1916. This Exhibit A-4 recites a sale deed of 10th March, 1916, under which the mortgagor purchased this property and it is also mentioned therein that there are no encumbrances on the property. On the foot of this mortgage a suit O.S. No. 158 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsif Js Court, Srivaikuntam, was filed. We have no records concerning this suit but it is stated that in this suit one Athi Nadar's predecessor-In-title one Vadivelperumal Nadar claimed paramount title and he ...
State of Madras, Represented by Dist. Collector, Tirunelveli Vs. S.K.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad464; (1958)2MLJ160
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a second appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli in A. S. No. 247! of 1954, reversing the well-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tirunelveli in O. S. No. 384 of 1953.2. The plaintiff is the owner of S. Nos. 547/ 1-A and 547/2-B, These lands are situated near a channel known as Vadamalayan Channel. These lands are two feet higher in level than the surface of the said channel. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to irrigate his lands by erecting cross-bunds across the Vadamalayan Channel. In fact he has been cross-bunding the channel with palmyrah and coconut trees and covering them with turf and leaves to a height of 4 to 6 feet in more than half a dozen places in Erewadi and Nambitalaivanpalayam villages. The plaintiff claims' this right to crossbund on two grounds viz., (a) customary right and (b) grant.The defendant, the State of Madras, contended that the suit lands were originally...
T.N. Kuriakose Vs. Mrs. Leelie Kuriakose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ393
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. Despite the range of arguments before us and the persistence and bitterness with which these interlocutory proceedings appear to have been fought out, the only modification, which, in our opinion, is called for in the order of Balakrishna Iyer, J., is the reduction of the quantum of alimony pendente lite from Rs. 180 a month which he awarded to Rs. 150 a month to be effective from the date of his order. The appeal will stand dismissed in other respects, but without costs.2. There was no acceptable evidence that the appellant's wife had any property which yielded any income. The learned Judge found that she had some jewellery, which was certainly not in excess of what a young lady of her status in life could be expected to possess for her personal use, some articles of furniture and household utensils, none of which she could be reasonably expected to sell either to maintain herself during the pendency of the suit or to finance the litigation, to which she had u...
Swadesamitran, Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen (Madras Union of Journalists)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ146Mad
V. Pattabhiramayya, J.1. This is an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of Swadesamitran, Ltd., Madras, and it was referred for adjudication to this Labour Court by G.O. Ms. No. 2440, I.L. & C., dated 20 July 1957. The point referred for adjudication as stated in the annexure to the said Government order is:Non-payment of increments to the working journalists from the year 1953. * * *4. On these contentions the following issues were settled for enquiry :(1) Whether the action of the management in not granting increments to the working journalists from 1953 is justified?(2) If not, to what relief are they entitled?5. Issue (1).--Till the year 1943 all the members of the staff of this concern were not having any regular scales of pay and they were being appointed on certain fixed salaries and probably some ad hoc increments were being given to them from time to time considering their capacity, efficiency, and usefulness. In 1943 by a circular, marked as Ex. M. 1, re...
Kunchithapatham Pillai Vs. Ranganadham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ272
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In order to qualify as a 'cultivating tenant' within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Madras Act XXV of 1955 at is not necessary that a person should put his own muscular effort into the soil. It is not necessary that he himself should plough the field or irrigate it or weed it or harvest it or thrash the grain that the field may yield. It is sufficient if the land is cultivated under his direct supervision and if further he assumes the risks of the cultivation. If he can decide what crops he would grow, when he would grow them and where he would grow them, if he can direct what labour should be employed and when and where and for what purposes, if he can decide what fertilizer he would use and in what proportions, if he can decide and direct when the field should be harvested and how the harvest should be disposed of, if he has direct control over such operations and if further he is not the paid agent in this respect of someone else, he would be a cultivatin...
M.T. Viswanathan Chettiar by Power of Agent, Balasubramania Iyer Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1958
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ414
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. It is convenient to deal with all these four Civil Revision Petitions together. The petitioner is a landlord and the respondents are his tenants. In February, 1953, they executed waram chits in his favour undertaking to pay rent at 60 per cent. of the gross produce. Year after year the crop was being divided on the ground at this rate. After Madras Act XXIV of 1956 came into force the respondents repudiated the provisions of the waram agreements they had entered into and wanted to convert their engagements into leases. They sent to the petitioner draft lease-deeds unilaterally fixing the rent at a certain rate. Not unntuarally the petitioner refused to accept their proposals. Subsequently in 1957 the respondents harvested the crops and, according to the petitioner, removed them without notifying him. There is no doubt that they did not share the crop on the thrashing floor. The petitioner thereupon filed four petitions before the Rent Court under Section 6 of Ma...
K.T. Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. Panchayat Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ106
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 25th August, 1955, the Panchayat Board of Takkolam passed a resolution granting a licence to the petitioner to install an additional electric motor of 15 H.P. On 2nd October, 1955, the President of the Panchayat Board communicated this fact to the petitioner and in his letter specified the conditions subject to which the licence was granted. The petitioner alleges that on the strength of this licence he started constructing additional buildings at a large cost and that he also purchased the requisite machinery. On 27th May, 1956, the President of the Panchayat Board wrote to the petitioner informing him that the licence which had been granted must be cancelled:in view of the fact that the said mill is outside the industrial area as declared in 1937 and that the horse-power of your motor exceeds in total the prescribed 20 horse-power The petitioner then went up to the Government who passed this order:The petitioner is informed that his request for the gra...
Narayanaswami Ayyar (C.V.) Vs. Vasudeva Ayyar (K.A.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ310Mad; (1958)IIMLJ1
P. Rajagopalan, Officiating C.J.1. The respondent, plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 229 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, was an employee of the petitioner, the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff's services terminated on 24 October 1954. On 31 March 1955 the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 300, The details of that claim as given in the plaint were:(1) salary from 1 August 1954 up to 1 October 1954 at Rs. 75 per month-Rs. 150.(2) Daily wages at Rs. 2-8-0 per day for Sundays from June 1954 to 8 September 1954,17 Sundays-Rs. 42-8-0.(3) Leave salary earned by the plaintiff for his service under the defendant from June 1951 to September 1954 at Rs. 2-8-0 per day-Rs. 125.(4) Fifteen days' salary in lieu of notice- Rs. 37-8-0.From the total sum of Rs. 355 thus arrived at the plaintiff deducted Rs. 33. He gave up a sum of Rs. 22 and he limited his claim to Rs. 300. The plaintiff admitted that for a period 1 October 1954 to 24 October 1954, h...
In Re: Govilan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad286; 1958CriLJ775; (1958)IMLJ243
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of South Arcot under the following circumstances. The police at Chidambaram filed a charge-sheet against the respondent herein, stating that he has committed an offence under 5 279, IPC read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegations are that the accused who was the driver of the lorry MSY. 2590 drove the lorry on 16-3-1957 in a rash and negligent manner so as to cause danger to human life at about O53 hours in the Chidambaram Bhengiri Road near 1 mile and 4 furlongs from Chidambaram and thereby dashed against a double-bullock cart and caused damage to the cart driven by one Nathar, P.W. 1.It is stated that this act fell under Section 279, IPC and Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no doubt that the police were wrong in adding Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act to this Section 279, I. P. O. Section 279, I.P.O., is as follows:Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »