Chennai Court November 1958 Judgments
V.S. Thiruvengadaswami Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad155
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This civil revision petition is by one Thiruvengadaswami Mudaliar the plaintiff in an unnumbered claim suit of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Tirumelveli, for revising and setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, dated 13-9-1955, directing Court-fee to be paid on the claim suit under the new Court-fees Act, and holding that the fixed Court-fee of Rs. 15 paid, under the old Court-Fees Act, to be insufficient and also directing payment of the deficit court-fee by 20-9-1955.The facts were briefly these : On 9-2-1954 the petitioner 61ed E. P. No. 4 of 1954 in O. P. No. 209 of 1932, on the file of the Distict Court, Tinmelveli and attached some lands of the respondent in the Tirunelveli Dt. The respondent filed E. A. No. 104 of 1954 on 15-4-1954, a claim petition for getting the lands released from the attachment. On 4-8-1954, an order was passed allowing the claim petition. Consequent on this the petitioner filed a claim su...
Tag this Judgment!T. Jagannatha Chettiar Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad439; 1959CriLJ1188
1. The petitioner had a permit to ply a bus M. D. H. 1811 in Chingleput district. About 1-40 p.m. on 27-6-1956 the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Chingleput, stopped and checked the bus and found that it carried 49 adults excluding the driver, conductor and the checking inspector while the permitted seating capacity was; only 45 passengers. A notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for contravention of the terms of his permit. The petitioner explained that the bus carried only 45 passengers, one new checking inspector by name K. Sampath (who was being trained by the regular checking Inspector) and 3 police constables who were urgently going to Madurantakam and had got in at Uttiramerur. These were the extra 4 persons who were seen in the bus when the checking officer checked the bus.In this explanation he added that the 3 constables had got into the bus in spite of the protests of his employees on the ground that they were urgently going to ...
Tag this Judgment!Mamundi Kaduvetti Vs. Somasundara Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad555
1. This second appeal arises out of the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in A. S. No. 138 of 1955 modifying that of the District Munsif of Pattukottai in O. S. No. 370 of 1953.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed the suit for redemption of a mortgage, Ex. A. 1 dated 22nd June, 1898 under the following circumstances. The suit properties and certain other properties were originally owned by one Muthu and his son Odayappa. They executed a possessory mortgage over certain items of properties in favour of one Sokkan Chettiar prior to 1898. On 22-6-1898 they executed a second usufructuary mortgage under Ex. A. 1 over those and certain other properties in favour of one Ramaswami.The mortgagee was directed to redeem from out of the portion of the mortgage money left in his hands the earlier mortgage in favour of Sokkan, The second mortgagee however failed to so redeem. The right of the mortgagee under Ex. A. 1 was transferred to one Alagappan. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Kothandarama Gramani Vs. Sellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ218
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of Fthe District judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore in O.S. No. 43 of 1953 dismissing the appellant's suit for a declaration that a settlement deed executed by his grandfather Varadappa in favour of his second wife Sellammal, the first respondent in the appeal, was void and not binding on the appellant. Varadappa who owned considerable properties was survived by his second wife Sellammal and 4 sons, respondents 2 to 5 to this appeal. Varadappa died in the year 1950. Prior to his death he executed a deed of settlement Exhibit B-1 in favour of the first respondent giving her an interest for life in 36 acres of land. The sons of Varadappa were evidently not pleased with the settlement. They tried to trespass on the properties settled upon their step-mother Thereupon the first respondent filed O.S. No. 113 of 1946 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam, for a declaration of her right to the properties u...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras (by Superintending Engineer, Manimuthar Dam) Vs. Sanki ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ390Mad
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are three appeals filed by the State of Madras, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Manimuthar Head Works Division, Manimuthar Dam, against the orders of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in I.A. Nos. 221 to 223 of 1955 rejecting the prayer to make Sankiah Thevar, the contractor in charge of the works at the spot where the accident occurred, indemnify the Government and return to them three sums of Rs. 720, Rs. 720 and Rs. 200 paid by them in respect of the death of Mythar Bathi, Mytheen Bathi and Subramanian, killed by a landslide, under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The facts are briefly these: Mythar Bathi, Mytheen Bathi and Subramaniam were daily coolies engaged under the contractor, Sankiah Thevar, the respondent, in the Manimuthar Dam Works. When the work was in progress, blasting had to be resorted to between 12 noon and 1 p.m., and, as it was a dangerous process involving considerable risk to life, wo...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Cotton Mills Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ512Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In December 1952, there was a certain amount of labour trouble in the Coimbatore Cotton Mills, Ltd., Singanallur. The badli workers, that is to say, substitute workers, forced their way into the mills and began to work the machines in contravention of the orders of the management. On 8 December 1952 some badli workers forced their way into the reeling department in defiance of instructions and started to work there. When this was reported to the manager, he directed the reeling maistri to remove the belts so that the reels could not be worked. Five belts were thereupon removed. Kannappan, the respondent 2, was at that time employed in the spinning apartment as a 'doffing boy.' The spinning apartment is in a separate shed adjacent to the reeling apartment. Without obtaining anybody's permission, Kannappan left the spinning apartment and entering the reeling apartment snatched the belts from the hands of the reeling maistri and flung them on the ground. It is...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras by Superintending Engineer, Manimuthar Headworks D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ108
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are three appeals filed by the State of Madras, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Manimuthar Head Works Division, Manimuthar Dam, against the orders of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in I.A. Nos. 221 to 223 of 1955, rejecting the prayer to make Sankiah Thevar, the contractor in charge of the works at the spot where the accident occurred, indemnify the Government and return to them three sums of Rs. 720, Rs. 720 and Rs. 200 paid by them in respect of the death of Mythar Bathi, Mytheen Bathi and Subramaniam, killed by a landslide, under the Workmen's Compensation Act.2. The facts are briefly these. Mythar Bathi, Mytheen Bathi and Subramaniam were daily coolies engaged under the contractor, Sankiah Thevar, the respondent, in the Manimuthar Dam Works. When the work was in progress, blasting had to be resorted to between 12 noon and 1 P.M. and, as it was a dangerous process involving considerable risk to life, wo...
Tag this Judgment!Vyrathammal Vs. Somasundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ429
Ramaswami, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, in A.S. No. 52 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tuticorin, in O.S. No. H2 of 1953.2. The undivided father of the defendants 1 and 2, T.S.S. Subramania Pillai, and one A.R. Chidambaram Pillai of Kulasekharapatnam were carrying on a partnership business styled as 'Sivaprakasam Press' at Tuticorin. Under a registered document, dated 18th September, 1916, the plaintiff's father purchased 2/6th share of the said Chidambaram Pillai in the said business out of the joint family funds of the family consisting of himself and his sons, viz., the brothers of the plaintiff. That transfer was recognised by the other partner, the father of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff's father thus became a partner in the firm for and on behalf of his family as and from 18th September, 1916. The amount to his credit as transferee partner had...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramanian (Minor) by His Maternal Uncle and Proposed Guardian, A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad429
P. V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. There is no substance in this appeal. The appeal is against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, dismissing an application made by the appellant before us. In execution of the decree in O. S. No. 49 of 1955 on the file of that Court, property belonging to the minor judgment-debtor had been sold and the application out of which this appeal arises was filed by the minor through his maternal uncle Arumugham, to set aside the sale under Order 21. Rule 90, C. P. C. There was also a prayer to dispense with the security. Actually, Arumugham the person who purported to file the application on behalf of the minor was not the guardian ad litem in the suit nor was he the guardian acting for the minor in the execution proceedings.The mother was the original guardian of the minor but she was removed on an application made by the maternal grandfather. The person who made the present application once before tried to remove the maternal grandfather an...
Tag this Judgment!Wakefield Estate (by Hitchi Gowder) Vs. Maruthan Uchi and 31 Ors. (Nee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ397Mad
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Labour Court of Coimbatore in M.W.P. No. 80 of 1957, dated 31 December 1957.2. On 19 October 1957, 32 persons who claimed to be workers in an estate called the Wake-field Estate applied through the president of the Neelamalai Plantation Workers' Union to the Labour Court at Coimbatore for certain directions under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act. Their case was that they had been working in Wakefield Estate from March 1957 to September 1957, and that they had not been paid the wages due to them under the Minimum Wages Act. They claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,153-3-0 was due to them in the aggregate and prayed that directions be given to the management of the Wakefield Estate to pay them this money.3. The manager of the estate filed a counter in which he stated :None of the applicants is entitled to claim the difference in wages claimed as none of the petitioners is employed by...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »