Chennai Court December 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 3 of about 43 results (0.012 seconds)Management of Thambi Motor Service, Salem Vs. Presiding Officer, Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad540; [1960(1)FLR60]; (1960)IILLJ563Mad; (1960)IIMLJ503
ORDER(1) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore passed in an industrial dispute between the petitioner--the management of Thambi Motor Service, Salem,--and the workers.(2) The industrial dispute related to matters concerning two workers, Irusappan and Manickam. The workers had been in the service of the petitioner--management from about 1951. While so their service had been terminated in July 1955 for alleged misconduct. Thereafter the union raised an industrial dispute which in the first instance went before the Labour Officer for conciliation. As the result of the goods offices of this Official a settlement was brought about under which the two workers were re-entertained in service as and from 21-9-1956. This agreement specifically mentioned that the workers were taken back without the benefit of back wages. Subsequently these two workers were retrenched from service. The propriety of this retrenchment was challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement Company, Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ628Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. There was a dispute between the workers represented by the secretary, Dalmia Cement Workers' Union, Dalmiapuram, Tlruchirap-palli district, and the management of Dalmia Cement (Bharat, Ltd.), Dalmiapuram, in regard to bonus payable to the former for the year 1955. The claim of the workers was that on the basis of the profits earned by the concern they would be entitled to six months' total earnings as bonus for the year 1955, whereas the contention of the management was that they would be bound to and need pay only one-half of this amount. While this dispute was being attempted to be conciliated and settled, an agreement was arrived at on 6 July 1957 in the presence of the Minister for Labour, Government of Madras. As the entirety of the argument in this petition turned upon the proper construction and legal effect of the agreement, it would be convenient to set out its essential terms even at this stage. The preamble recited:-Whereas the Hon'ble Sri R. V...
Tag this Judgment!Railway Employees Co-operative Bank, Ltd. P.T. Madras Vs. the Presidin ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad345; [1960(1)FLR164]; (1960)IILLJ215Mad
ORDER(1) The Railway Employees' Co-operative Bank Ltd., Madras is the petitioner, and it prays for the grant of a writ of prohibition, restraining the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court from proceeding further with the hearing in C. P. No. 160 of 1959 on its file. There are two respondents to this petition. The first is the presiding officer of the Labour Court, Madras, against whom the writ of prohibition is sought. The other is Jayaraman who was an employee of the petitioner bank. 84 of the employees of whom the second respondent is one, filed applications before the Labour Court claiming over-time wages under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the basis that this was a benefit which they were entitled to receive from the employer, the prayer being that it should be computed in terms of money. The overtime wages claimed and which they desired to be computed related to the period May to November 1956. These 84 applications which were in common from but naturally cl...
Tag this Judgment!Mckenzies Ltd., Madras Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad446; [1960(1)FLR459]; (1960)ILLJ334Mad
ORDER(1) The legality of an award of the Labour Court, Madras, in Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1958, on its file is the subject matter of this petition. The dispute which was referred for adjudication by the Labour Court and the legality in the award which is in controversy in this petition, is whether the dismissal of eight workers of the petitioners' establishment was justified and the relief to which they were entitled.(2) The petitioners were an engineering firm with branches all over India. They had a branch at Madras and it was the case of the management that the Madras branch having proved a loss, they were taking steps to have it closed. The Tribunal found as a fact that losses were being incurred by the Madras branch so that the desire of the management to have it closed was bona fide. The question however that had still to be considered was as to whether the retrenchment of these eight workers was or was not justified.The Tribunal found that the retrenchment of six of the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Ln. Sm. Ramasamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. Adaikkammai Alias
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad341
(1) The point of law raised for admission in this second appeal and which alone can be raised as the findings of fact based upon acceptable an relevant evidence are concurrent & binding upon me is that a benamidar notwithstanding the non-intervention and non-opposition of the real owner cannot maintain a suit for partition and that this objection can be raised by the other parceners or co-owners.(2) The fact that merely because the appellant has shown that an arguable or prima facie point of law arises in appeal is not a ground for admission, has been expounded by the Law Commission in its 14th Report of the Reform of the Judicial Administration Vol. 1 Chapter 16 page 390. The Court has further to be satisfied that the decision of the lower appellate Court on a point of law is erroneous and that it is necessary in order to do justice between the appellant and the respondent that a further hearing should be given to both the parties.In fact the Law Commission has gone to the extent of s...
Tag this Judgment!United Bleachers Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ70; [1960]11STC278(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These cases are filed under Section 12-B (1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee, the United Bleachers Ltd., owns a processing factory for textiles in Mettupalyam in the Coimbatore District. Several of the spinning and weaving mills at Coimbatore forward to the assessee unbleached yarn and cloth manufactured by their mills. They are then bleached or dyed, calendered, pressed and folded. They are thereafter packed and delivered back to the customer mills. The packing materials used, namely, brown kraft papers, hoop iron, hessian cloth, jute twine, palm mats etc., are purchased by the assessee. In making the charges for services, the assessee included in the bill the charge for packing and the packing materials; they were not however separately shown. The following is an example of a bill issued to the customer. Description Rate AmountTo bleaching charges for L.M.C. 21 2153variety cloth 43,240 yards. per yard 3,839-8-3To stitching, folding, stamping...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Chidambara Nadar Sons and Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]11STC321(Mad)
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. These two revision cases raise the question of liability to sales tax of turnovers representing the price of packing materials employed for effecting sales of the cotton and yarn respectively by the assessees in the two cases. The question whether the turnover relating to packing materials would be assessable to tax, there being no claim for exemption under Rule 5 (1) (g) (ii) of the Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, was considered in two decisions of this Court, viz., Varasukhi and Co. v. Province of Madras : AIR1951Mad254 and Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co., Ltd. v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 354. It was held that where there was a sale of certain goods, the intention being to sell the goods as packed, there would be a sale of the packing materials as well and the turnover relating to them would be liable to sales tax.2. Mr. Sethuraman, who appeared for the assessee, contended that the two decisions required reconsideration in the light o...
Tag this Judgment!M.Kn.N. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. S.P.P. Srinivasan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad499; (1960)IIMLJ93
(1) The defendant judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 4 of 1942 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, was the appellant in the lower appellate Court and in the appeal in this appeal.(2) One Panchaksharam Chettiar obtained a decree on 25-9-1942, against the appellant's father for recovery of Rs. 3300 odd in O. S. No. 4 of 1942, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga. The appellant's brother filed I. A No. 18 of 1950 on 14-9-1949 under S. 19 of IV of 1938 to have the debt scaled down. An order was passed in that application on 29-8-1950 scaling down the debt to Rs. 2100 odd. The appellant's brother preferred an appeal A. S. No. 3 of 1951 to the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, praying that the debt be scaled down to a lower figure. The District Judge passed an order on 20-8-1951 not refusing merely that further scaling down that was prayed for, but disallowing altogether the appellant's claim to scaling down. He declared that the amount payable by the appellant and his broth...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswamy Udayar Vs. Venkatachala Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad385
(1) These are two connected second appeals arising from the decrees and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in A. S. Nos. 31 and 33 of 1956 preferred against the decrees and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur in O. S. Nos. 64 of 1954 and 59 of 1955 respectively.(2) The facts of this case can be easily followed if we take on hand the combined sketches (marked Parts I and II) annexed to this judgment for reference.(3) The plaintiff in both the suits Venkatachala Reddiar s the owner of wet fields S. F. 126/7 (59 cents) and S. F. 126/8 (27 cents) in Eraiyur in Perembalur taluk. the only other wet field in the locality is S. F. 126/20 (15 cents in extent) belonging to the defendant Duraisami Udayar. these three went lands have the Mangalam Thangal Eri surplus channel as their recognised source of irrigation. Venkatachala Reddiar filed O. S. No. 64 of 1954 for an injunction restraining the defendant therein from taking water through the cement pipe fi...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Moopan Vs. Angammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad348; 1960CriLJ1098
ORDER(1) This revision is preferred against the order made by the Additional First Class Magistrate at Kulitalai in M. C. No. 58 of 1959.(2) The petitioner is the husband of the respondent, Angammal. The marriage took place about 20 years ago, and this couple has got two children, one of whom is sufficiently grown up to have the question of her marriage being taken up. It is very unfortunate that this couple have fallen out and they have been living separately. One of the many causes which seems to have divided the husband and wife is the fact that the wife wanted apparently to get her daughter married to her own brother and which the husband opposed.The marriage was not opposed on the ground that he was within the prohibited degrees, but apparently because the husband has taken a dislike of the brother-in-law proposed by the wife as his son-in-law. It is in these circumstances that this petition for maintenance was filed by the wife. The husband, first of all, stated that the wife had...
Tag this Judgment!