Chennai Court December 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 43 results (0.013 seconds)In Re: Kandasami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ930
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence by tile learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore Division in Sessions Case No. 91 of 1959.2. The accused aged about 22 at the time of the trial, married P.W. 2 Suppayal in 1956 or 1957. P.W. 2 continued to live with her father in Perunthalayur on account of the fact that the accused was a peripatetic cook. The accused was employed in Gobichettipalayam as a cook under D.W. 1 and used to visit his wife off and on.3. On Monday (30-3-1959) the accused visited his wife and remained in his father-in-law's house in the night. On the morning of Tuesday (31-3-1959) his father-in-law went out for work. The accused, P.W. 2, her younger sister Kannal (P.W. 11) and the deceased female child aged about seven months were in the house. The accused asked P.W. 2 to go with him and P.W. 2 replied that she would do so after her father returned. Then the accused asked P.W. 2 to prepare hot water. P.W. 2 therefore went out to fetch wat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chinnasami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1344
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Salem in Sessions Case No. 81 of 1959 upon his file. The two appellants, Chinna samy (Accused 1) and Chinnan (Accused 2) have both been convicted at the trial of abduction in order to murder (Section 364 I. P. C), murder in . furtherance of a common intention (Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC) and causing disappearance of the evidence of crime (Section 201 I. P. C). They have both been sentenced to death upon the main charge of murder, no separate sentences being awarded upon the other charges. The appeals of the condemned prisoners are also before us.2. This case related to the deliberate and planned murder of a man named Minor alias Chin na Goundan residing at Aniyar Kolandapalayam village. There can be no doubt that this Minor Goundan was making life a vertiable inferno for his wife Ramayee, and his sons accused 1 and A' Marappan (P.W. 3). The deceased was a spendthrift and a drunkard,...
Tag this Judgment!V. Arumugham Pillai Vs. N.R.M. Tulasi Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ145
1. This Second Appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A.S. No. 98 of 1959, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Karur in O.S. No. 211 of 1957.2. The facts are : The suit property admittedly belonged to P.W. 3 Venkatesalu Naidu. It was leased out to the defendant as per lease deed Exhibit A-5, dated 19th June, 1943) for a period of one year. The defendant has been subsequently holding over. It was specifically leased out for the purpose of storing Kadalai Pottu or husk of groundnut, by the adjoining mill-owner, viz., the lessee. This plot of land has come to be known as Pottu Medu or elevation for storing husk. The rent was fixed at Rs. 6-4-0 per month. Subsequently, when the lessor had given notice determining the tenancy and for evicting the lessee, the latter seeks to resist the former on the ground that he has been cultivating a portion of the land demised with cholam, etc...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.N.S. Transports, Tiruchirapalli Vs. K. Rajaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad332; (1960)ILLJ336Mad
(1) The only point pressed upon us by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the workman for fixing the amount payable to him as back wages in consequence of the award of the Labour Court dated 11th September, 1954 in and by which the management was directed to reinstate the workman with back wages The contention was that the matter really fell within the province of Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act and the workman should have moved the authority specified in that section for the relief he sought and therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In our opinion the contention cannot be accepted for two reasons, Firstly, we think that Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough to cover a case like this where the award of a Labour Court merely gave a benefit to the workman, namely, the benefit of back wages, without specifying the amount the workman had become entitled to receiv...
Tag this Judgment!William Jacks and Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ155; [1960]11STC340(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The question for determination is whether a lathe which was driven by electrical motors constituted 'electrical goods' within the meaning of Section 3(2)(viii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, subject to the payment of sales tax at the higher rate. The Tribunal held that the lathe which the assessee sold to the railways did come within the scope of 'electrical goods' and that the amount received towards the sale price of that lathe in the year of assessment was turnover subject to the payment of the additional tax under Section 3(2) (viii).2. The Tribunal purported to apply the principle laid down by this Court in William Jacks and Co., Ltd., Madras v. The State of Madras [1955] 6 S.T.C. 301. Apparently the Tribunal overlooked what this Court stated,It is neither possible nor desirable for this Court to embark on a preparation of an exhaustive list of what constitute 'electrical goods' within the meaning of Section 3(2) (viii) of the Act nor even is it possib...
Tag this Judgment!The South India Metal Works and Rolling Mills Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ257; [1960]11STC507(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. One of the lines of business of the petitioner assessee was to convert the scrap metal entrusted to him into sheets and rings for the customers. In the assessment year 1955-56, the petitioner collected from his customers a sum of Rs. 87,118-14-6 as labour charges for the supply of finished copper and brass sheets and rings. The Department held in effect that there must have been a purchase of the scrap metal from the customers and that the subsequent transaction was a sale of the brass and copper sheets and rings. The Department estimated the turnover of the second transaction at three times the labour charges and on an estimated turnover of Rs. 2,61,356-11-6 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax. On appeal, the Commercial Tax Officer confirmed that assessment, The Tribunal confirmed that assessment when the assessee appealed, to the Tribunal. The assessee there upon applied to this Court under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act to, set aside the assessment on ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Ramanatha Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad436; (1960)IIMLJ55
(1) This appeal is against the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Ramaswami Gounder J., dated 11-10-1955 in A. S. No. 523 of 1951, reversing the decree and judgment passed the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, in O. S. No. 47 of 1949. The State of Madras, represented by the Collector of Tanjore, is the appellant.(2) The first respondent to this appeal, Ramanatha Rao, is the son of one Kasinatha Rao. He along with his brother, Krishnajee Rao, claimed to be entitled to the properties in their capacity as the mathrubandus of Jagannathan, the last male owner of the suit property. The said Jagannathan was an illegitimate son of Singaravelu by this concubine, one Dhanabagyathammal. The said Jagannathan died on 1-8-1945, leaving certain lands and houses and moveable properties situate mostly in the village of Manadakudi in the Ayyampettai vattam and also in Marudavancheri.These properties originally belonged to Singaravelu Pillai, who died on the 10th February 1943, leaving a di...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional District Panchayat Officer Vs. S. Venkatarama Iyer and ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ75
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in Writ Petition No. 192 of 1959 which was filed in the following circumstances. The term of office of the members of the Kadayanallur Panchayat expired on 18th December, 1958. Anticipatory election of the members to fill up the vacancies which would arise on the expiry of the term of the previous members was completed on 28th November, 1958. The Additional District Panchayat Officer in pursuance of the powers delegated to him by the Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards purported to appoint one Abdul Hameed, one of the newly elected members, as 'Temporary' President under Section 25(3) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, and he took charge as such on 18th December, 1958. The Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, Tirunelveli, who is the Election Authority under the relevant rules, appointed the Additional District Panchayat Officer, Tiru-nelveli, as the Election O...
Tag this Judgment!Sellappa Goundan and ors. Vs. A. Bhaskaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ363
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, in O.A. No. 18 of 1958, declaring that the inam: village of Komarapalayam in Tiruchengode Taluk of Salem District is not an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908.2. The appellants claim to be ryots in the village. Alleging that they were only holding under a lease which had expired, the inamdars filed O.S. No. 62 of 1955 in the District Munsif's Court, Sankari at Salem, for eviction and allied reliefs.. The appellants resisted the claim of the inamdars pleading that they were entitled to occupancy rights in the lands as the village of Komarapalayam was an estate, and that the lands held by them were ryoti. While the suit was pending, respondents 1 and 2, two out of five co-sharer inamdars of the village, filed an application under Section 3(1) of Madras Act XXX of 1956 before the-Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vellore, for a declaration t...
Tag this Judgment!Kairum Bi W/O Abdul Shukan Sahib and ors. Vs. Mariam Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad447; (1960)IIMLJ110
(1) Defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants. Katheeja Bi, the 10th defendant, had three sons, Abdul Razack, Abdul Subhan and Abdul Shukoor. Abdul Razack died in 1944. Abdul Subhan died in 1947. Under the Mohammedan law on the death of these sons Katheeja Bi became entitled to a one-sixth share in their estates. On 17-6-1948 she executed a deed of settlement, Ex. A. 1 whereby she gave the one-sixth share which she inherited in the estate of Abdul Razack as also the one-sixth share which she inherited in the estate of Abdul Subhan jointly to plaintiffs 1 and 2.The first plaintiff, Mariam Bi, it may be stated, is the only daughter of Katheeja Bi and the second plaintiff is the husband of Mariam Bi. On the strength of this settlement deed the plaintiffs instituted O. S. No. 81 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, for the partition of the estate of Abdul Razack. That suit was compromised on 23-1-1950 and the plaintiffs obtained for themselves the properties set out in Ex. B....
Tag this Judgment!