Chennai Court April 1958 Judgments
M.L. Yacoob Sheriff Vs. Additional Assistant Controller, Estates Duty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad87; [1958]34ITR1(Mad); (1958)2MLJ447
Rajagopalan, J. 1. On the death of Lalu Mean Sahib, his estate in the hands of his heir, the petitioner, was assessed to duly under the previsions of the Estate Duly Act, Act XXXIV of 1953, and the Additional Assistant Controller, assessed the sum payable as duty at Rs. 5812.51. The total value of the estate was estimated at Rs. 1,71,139. The Additional Assistant Controller negatived the claim of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 88,000 ought to be deducted on the ground that this represented the debts payable by the deceased to two of his children. Against the decision of the Additional Assistant Controller the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, availing himself of the statutory right under Section 63 of the Act. Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioner asked the Additional Assistant Controller for stay of the collection of the duty imposed. Though the real question in dispute in the appeal was whether the petitioner's claim for the deduction of Rs. 8...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal and ors. Vs. Chellammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad100
1. This appeal has been posted before as for disposal as one of the questions that arise in the appeal is the soundness of the contention that the decision reported in Parappa v. Nagamma,(FB) has impliedly overruled the decision reported in Subbarao v. Krishnaprasadam, .2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: In the village of Kavanoor in South Arcot Dt. there lived two brothers, Chidambaram Pillai and Saminatha Pillai, as members of a joint Hindu family. Chidambaram Pillai is stated to have become insane by about the year 1920 and he died on 6-7-1948 leaving his widow Chellammal. Chellammal filed O.S.N. 20 of 1919, on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, for partition of the joint family properties claiming rights under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937.Saminatha Pillai was the first defendant and his wife and daughter were second and third defendants respectively. Defendants 4 to 15 were alienees from Saminatha Pillai. Saminatha Pillai died pending the s...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Lipton, Ltd. Vs. Lipton, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ602Mad
Rajagopalan, J.1. Three sets of disputes between the workmen, and the management of the Madras establishment of Lipton (India), Ltd., were referred to the Special Industrial Tribunal, Madras, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. They were registered as I.D. Nos. 8, 9 and 47 of 1956. They were consolidated for disposal and they were disposed of by the tribunal by its award dated 15 October 1956. The workmen represented by their union applied under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the awards in I.D.No. 8 of 1956 (C.R.P. No. 229 of 1957) and I.D. No. 9 of 1956 (C.R.P. No. 230 of 1957).2. What was really challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was the correctness of the decision of the tribunal on the following items of dispute between the workmen and the management:(1) Items 1 and 2 in I.p. No. 9 of 1958-fixation of wages on time-scale for all categories of employees and fixation of dearness allowance.(2) Items 1 and 5 of I.D. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Gopanna Manradiar and ors. Vs. J. Gopanna Manradiar and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ275
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The point involved in this appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., is very simple. The following facts suffice to bring out the point:On 21st May, 1954 the Assistant Settlement Officer made an order granting Patta to the respondent. The appellants - legal representatives of one Chandra Gopanna, feeling aggrieved by this order had preferred an appeal to the Abolition Tribunal on the 13th February, 1956 under Section 15(2) of Act XXVI of 1948. Section 15(2) of the Act as it stood on the 21st of May, 1954, the date of the order, appealed against ran thus:Any person deeming himself aggrieved by a decision of the Settlement Officer under Sub-section (1) may within two months from the date of the decision or such further time as the Tribunal, may in its discretion allow, appeal to the tribunal, and its decision shall be final and not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law.2. This sub-section was subsequently amended by Madras Act XXXIV of 1954 which ca...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Arunachala Nadar and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ408
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This revision is by the first and the second accused in C.G. No. 555 of 1956 on the file of the Additional First Glass Magistrate, Madurai. They were convicted for an offence under Section 16 (1)(a) read with Sections 7(1) and 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 46 of the Rules framed under the Act. The first accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75 and the second accused to Rs. 25. The convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal by the Sessions Judge, Madurai.2. The first accused is a ghee and butter merchant at Madurai and the second accused is a clerk under him. On 28th Agust, 1956, P.W. 1, the Food Inspector of Madurai Municipality, went to the shop of the first accused and purchased from the second accused, his clerk, 4 1/2 palams of butter. The first accused was not present then. The second accused sold to P.W. 1 the required quantity. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, intimated to the clerk (second accused) that he was making ...
Tag this Judgment!Workers in the hindu (Madras Union of Journalists) Vs. the hindu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ344Mad
V. Pattashi Ramaiya, J.1. This is an industrial dispute between the working journalists and the management of the 'Hindu,' Madras. It was originally referred under the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication by G.O. Ms. No. 2377, dated 17 July 1957, as a dispute between the workers and the management of the 'Hindu.' The point referred for adjudication as stated in the said Government order, is -1. Whether the termination of services of Sri R. Narasimhan, Sub-editor, is justified and to what relief he is entitled.2. Subsequently the Government issued a Memorandum No. 90095-LI/57-2, dated 20 September 1957, amending the Government order by substituting the words ' working journalists' for workers and by referring the dispute under Section 3(1) of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act also.3. After the original reference was issued the Madras Union of Journalists (hereinafter referred to as M.U.J. for the sake of brevity) through its general sec...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Kannappa Gounder Vs. District Forest Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ268
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal by one T.K. Kannappa Gounder, a forest contractor, against the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in W.P. No. 40 of 1954, dismissing his application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Forest Officer, Vellore East Division and of the District Collector, North Arcot, who decided to set aside the same.2. The District Forest Officer, Vellore East, passed an order stating that the appellant was placed in the 'black list' and that he would not be allowed to participate in any 'forest sales or allowed to enter into any forest contracts in the division in future'. The appellant appealed against this order to the District Collector but without success. He then applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the District Forest Officer and of the Collector. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., dismissed the application holding that the order in question did not offend against Article 14 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Sriramulu Naidu Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation throug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad457; (1958)IILLJ596Mad; (1958)2MLJ544
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is against the order of the Court of the Employees Insurance, Coimbatore, in proceedings No. 1 of 1956 on the file of that court. The respondent in this appeal took out an application on 21-6-1956, under Section 77, read with Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, praying for a declaration that the appellant, Pakshiraja Studios, Coimbatore, is a factory and that the opposite party, namely, the appellant before me, was liable to pay the employers' special contribution and the employees' contribution in respect of all the employees employed, and to direct him to pay the same to the corporation. 2. The application was heard by the learned Judge, S. Ganapatia Pillai, presiding over the court of the Employees' Insurance, Coimbatore, and after considering both the oral and documentary evidence in the case, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to a declaration in terms of Clause (a...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager (Personnel Branch) Southern Railway, Park Town, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad88; (1958)IILLJ324Mad; (1958)2MLJ517
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J. 1. We are in entire agreement with the learned Judge, Panchapakesa Ayyar J. that enough has been made out to direct an enquiry into the matter after notice to the respondent. It cannot be denied that the respondent's rights have been affected, though there was an attempt by learned counsel for the appellants before us to show that the respondent had no right to agitate before the court. If the respondent's correct date of birth was 1908, then, certainly, he has got a right to remain in service till 1963. It is therefore clear that the respondent is aggrieved and his rights have been infringed, and we have no doubt whatever that the most efficacious remedy is by way of an application under Article 223 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the railway authorities contended that a suit was the proper remedy. We do not wish to say more than that we are extremely surprised at the contention. 2. It is quite clear from the records that there are two dates of birth ent...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ismail Maracair and ors. Vs. Doraisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ74
P.V. Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Chandra Reddi, J., in Appeal No. 13 of 1950, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in O.S. No. 19 of 1948. The plaintiffs who are the appellant here filed a suit on the foot of a mortgage, Exhibit A-1, dated 25th February, 1933, executed by the 4th respondent in favour of one Rokia Bi. Rokia Bi died in 1937, leaving as her heirs four sons and one daughter. One of the sons, Mahomed Sultan, was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 24 of 1933 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, and his estate became vested in the Official Receiver of South Arcot. The appellants who represent the interests of all the heirs of Rokia Bi except Mahomed Sultan filed a suit to recover the mortgage debt in the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. Their claim was only in regard to their 7/9th share in the mortgage. They valued their share of the mortgage amount at Rs. 8,750 and giving up their claim in respect of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »