Chennai Court April 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.
Abdul Kafoor and anr. Vs. Abdul Razack and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad131; (1958)2MLJ492
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. in S. A. No. 1407 of 1946. That arose out of a suit filed by the appellants against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. One Vappu Rowther was the owner of the properties, He died in 1936. He left behind him a daughter Savuravan Beevi through his predeceased first wife, his second wife, Zuleka Beevi and a son by her, the first respondent to the appeal. Zuleka Beevi died after the succession to the estate of Vappu Rowther opened.Savuravan Beevi died in 1944 leaving behind her, her children the appellants as her heirs. The appellants claim that their mother was entitled to a share in the properties as an heir of Vappu Rowther, that on the death of their mother they were entitled to the same. The defence of the first respondent was that Savuravan Beevi even during the life-time of Vappu Rowther had executed a release Ex. B. 6 ...
Madura Mills Workers' Co-operative Stores, Ltd. (Rice Mill Branch) Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)IILLJ230Mad; (1958)IIMLJ487
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Madura Mills Workers' Co-operative Stores, Ltd., was registered under the Madras Co-operative. Societies Act on 23 December 1939. With a view to supply rice to its members at as favourable rates as possible the stores obtained a lease of a rice mill located in Sellur on 1 July 1942. The lease was for a term of eight year's. The stores was employing 30 men and 42 women workers in the mill. So long as rationing was in force the mill was apparently working at a profit, But after rationing was abolished the stores found that there was not sufficient work for all these 72 persons in the mill. The audit reports showed that in 1953 the rice mill sustained a loss of of Rs. 29,614. In 1954 there was again a loss of about Rs 17,500. In 1956 the loss amounted to about Rs. 21,000. The stores thought that the mill was working at a loss because there were too many employees in it. On 1.6 September 1955 the stores put up a notice stating that as there was no stock of ...
In Re: Rukku
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: 1958CriLJ1195
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The procedure adopted in this case by the Magistrate must be put an end to at once. In this case a woman by name Rukku pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 75, City Police Act, and, was fined Rs. 3/-. She was given a default sentence of three days simple imprisonment. -In addition, the Magistrate bound her over in her own bond in a sum of Rs. 10/- to keep the peace for six months under Section 106,. Criminal P.C.2. The correct procedure would have been to ask her before leaving the court whether she was willing to execute the bond and then take her signature thereto because naturally she would have no objection, unless she was appealing or filing a revision petition, to sign the bond. That meant she would have had to pay the fine only.In the case of fine also time should have been given for the payment of the fine because it will be wholly improper to expect accused persons to' anticipate what would be the fine to be imposed upon them by the Magistrate & also...
S. Palaniappa Mudaliar Vs. Additional First Class Magistrate and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ346
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner in all these cases is the same and he is the owner of a weaving concern in Karur. He has put up a thatched shed where he has installed a certain number of hand-looms. On these, towels and bed-sheets are manufactured. His office staff consists only of two clerks and they are the only permanent members of his establishment. The residents of the neighbourhood when they have time on their hands and when they feel inclined to do so, go to the petitioner's shed where they are supplied with yarn. These they weave into towels and bed-sheets and they are paid at certain agreed rates for the articles they so weave. These persons come in when they like and go out when they like. In other words, they work on the premises only when it suits them to do so. The principal occupation, of the residents of Karur is agriculture and weaving is only their spare-time occupation. They accept work only according to the time they are able to spare from their agricultu...
Angappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Krishnaswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad28; 1959CriLJ52; (1958)2MLJ355
1. This is a reference by Ratnaswami J., on the question as to whether Section 147 Cri. P. C., empowers a Magistrate only to pass a prohibitory order, which is generally in a negative form, or whether it empowers a Magistrate to issue a positive order to secure the exercise of the right of the aggrieved party, who complains of the infringement of his right.2. The reference has arisen out of an order passed by the learned Ex-Officio First Class Magistrate, Namakkal, in regard to a channel concerning which a dispute arose between the A and B parties and which channel at the time of the enquiry before the Magistrate had become obliterated and had ceased to be a channel functioning as such. The operative portion of the order against which a revision was preferred before the learned Judge is contained in paragraph 9 of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. After reviewing the entire evidence let in before him the learned First Class Magistrate of Namakkal observed therein as follows :...
In Re: C.N. Annadurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad63; 1959CriLJ204; (1958)IIMLJ363
1. This is a reference made to this Court under Section 432, Cri. P. C., by the Second Presidency Magistrate in M. P. No. 329 of 1958 in C. C. No. 184 of 1958 at the instance of the accused, G. N. An-nadurai, leader of the D.M.K. and ten others. These eleven persons were charged in that case for having committed an offence punishable under Section 41 of the City Police Act. The case of the prosecution was that the accused had committed the offence by having proceeded towards the Triplicane beach on 3-1-1958 to conduct a public meeting in defiance of the order of the Commissioner of Police, Madras, dated 31-12-1957, banning all meetings in the city except certain specified, categories of meetings which could be held without a licence and meetings for which licences had been given by the Commissioner of Police, Assistant Commissioner of Police, etc., and subject to the conditions of the licences.The accused had proposed to hold a public meeting at Triplicane Beach on 3-1-1958 at 6 p.m. o...
N.V.N. Nagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Pudukottai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad205; (1958)2MLJ10
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In all these cases the facts are similar and the question for determination is the same.2. The assessees are residents of the former State of Pudukottai. That State merged in the taxable territories on 1-4-1949. Some time in 1952 the Income-tax Officer, Pudukottai, completed the assessment on the petitioners and served the prescribed notices on them. On 2-3-1956 the Income-tax Officer issued notices to the assessees under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act mentioning therein that the interest chargeable on the assessees under Section 18-A (8) of the Act had not been included in their assessment and inviting their objections to the inclusion of such interests in their assessments.The petitioners made their representations to the Income-tax Officer, but he overruled their objections and purporting to act under Section 35 and Section 18-A (8) of the Act he included in the assessments of the petitioners interest at six per cent per annum for the relevant period. ...
N. Vs. N. Nagappa Chettiar and Others V. Income-tax Officer, Pudukotta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR583(Mad)
In all these cases the facts are similar and the questions for determination is the same.The assessee are residents of the former state of Pudukottai. That State merged in the taxable territories on April 1, 1949. Some times in 1952, the Income-tax Officer, Pudukottai, completed the assessment on the petitioners and served the prescribed notice on them. On March 2, 1956, the Income-tax officer issued notices to the assessees under section 35 of the Income-tax Act mentioning therein that the interest chargeable on the assessees under section 18A(8) of the the Act hadnot been included in their assessments and inviting their objections to the inclsion of such interests in their assessment. The petitions made their representations to the Income-tax Officer, but he coverruled their objections and purporting to act under section 35 and section 18A(8) of the Act he included in the assessment of the petitioners interest at six per cent. per annum for the relevant period., He also issued notice...
V. Somasundaram Vs. Srimathi Nalini Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ159
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In 1938, Somasundaram, the petitioner before me, married the respondent Nalini. By 1953, the relationship between the two got very strained and in that year Nalini filed O.P. No. 181 of 1953 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner under Section 5 of Madras Act VI of 1949. On 28th November, 1953, a decree was passed dissolving the marriage between the parties. Among other things, the Court also directed that Somasundaram should pay Nalini Rs. 600 per month for her maintenance, the payment to continue so long as she remained unmarried. In November, 1956, Somasundaram filed O.S. No. 2090 of 1956 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for setting aside that portion of the decree in O P. No. 181 of 1953 which directed that he should pay Nalini Rs. 600 per month. That relief was sought for on the ground that Nalini had givch birth to a child in November, 1953, that Somasundaram could have had no acces...
Sri Navaneethaswaraswami Devasthanam, Represented by Its Executive Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad502; (1958)2MLJ281
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The village of Sellur belongs to the Navaneethaswaraswami Devasthanam, Sikkil, as Ekabngam Mirasdar or sole proprietor. The village was not an estate within the meaning of Madras Act I of 1908 as that Act originally-stood, but became one by virtue of Madras Act XVIII of 1936. The lands which form the subject-matter of this litigation are not private lands. On 29th November 1917, this Court decided in A.S. Nos. 146, 228 and 230 of 1916 that the village was not an estate, from which it follows that no ryots had any permanent rights of occupancy in the lands. By a lease deed dated 31st July, 1946, the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam leased some of the lands situated in the village to Srinivasa Naidu for a period of three years. Similarly, by another lease deed dated 29th July, 1946, the Devasthanam leased some other lands to one Swaminatha Pillai, also for a period of three years. After 31st December, 1948, the lessees refused to pay rent at the contract rate....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »