Chennai Court February 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.016 seconds)Dhanmull Sowcar Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Salem and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad531; 1959CriLJ1443; (1959)2MLJ118
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner had a stage carriage permit for his bus, MDJ 1953. On 18-5-1956, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, South Salem, stopped the vehicle at the 15th mile stone on the Salem-Harur road, and checked it. He then found that the bus was carrying 49 passengers, excluding the driver and the conductor, while its authorised seating capacity was only 40 passengers. The bus was overloaded by 9 passengers. In addition, it was found that 31 baskets of mangoes were being transported by that bus, for which freight charges had been collected at the rate of four annas per basket.2. The Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, called for the explanation of the petitioner in respect of these irregularities. In the explanation which the petitioner submitted, he stated that the allegation that there were 49 passengers was untrue and that the bus carried only 40 passengers. He further mentioned that a constable was travelling in that bus and that the constable...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govinda Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad513; 1959CriLJ1440
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. In this case the petitioners were charged for an offence Under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them is that they orally quarrelled in a public street. Finding that it does not amount to an offence Under Section 160 J. P. C., and without taking any statement from the accused the petitioners have been convicted Under Section 290, I. P. C.The ingredients of an offence Under Section 160, I. P. C., are totally different from the ingredients of an offence Under Section 290, I. P. C. The petitioners successfully met the charge Under Section 160, 3. P. C., and there was not. the slightest possibility of their knowing that they will be convicted Under Section 290, I. P. C. It is doubtful whether a person who is charged Under Section 160, I. P. C., can ever be convicted Under Section 290, I. P. C.In order that a person may be convicted Under Section 290, I. P. C., there must be public nuisance by doing an act or an illegal omission causing any comm...
Tag this Judgment!Philipose (D.) Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ78Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent 2 company. In June 1938 he was appointed as temporary advertising supervisor. Subsequently he worked in various capacities, and eventually in 1958 he was holding a post which involved travelling. On 11 July 1958 he was served with a chargesheet by the head office of the company at Calcutta, in which it was alleged that he had threatened to assault a co-employee. On this charge the company dismissed the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal he appealed to the Labour Commissioner under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Before the Labour Commissioner, the company put forward the contention that the petitioner was a person who came within the meaning of Clause (6) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, and that therefore, the appeal was not competent. The Commissioner referred to Ex. B. 4 from which he extracted the following passage :The present serves to inform you that you ...
Tag this Judgment!Muppudathi Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ225
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal involves the determination of a question as to the scope of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act,2. One Vinayagam Pillai owned the suit properties. He executed a sale of them to his second wife, Vellayammal. She pre-deceased her husband. Her mother, Krishnammal, claiming to be her heir sold the properties, which, ultimately vested in certain alienees of whom the appellant is one. Vinayagam Pillai died leaving behind him his first wife, and respondents 1 and 2, his sons through her. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of possession of the properties from the alienees on the footing that they as the heirs of Vinayagam were entitled to the same. They impugned the binding nature of the sale by their father to Vellayammal and also of Krishnammal's right to convey the suit properties.3. The alienees resisted the suit by pleading that Krishnammal was the lawful heir of Vellayammal as according to them the latter...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees in the Caltex (India), Ltd., Madras and anr. Vs. the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad441; (1959)ILLJ520Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Burmah-Shell, Caltex and Standard Vacuum are important distributors of mineral oil and mineral oil products in India. Prior to April 1958, the employees of these concerns or rather, the bulk of them -- belonged to one or other of four unions, viz., the Burmah-Shell Oil Company's Union, The Caltex Oil Company's Union, the Standard Vacuum Oil Companies Union and the Madras Kerosene Oil Workers Union, Neither the Burmah-Shell Oil Company nor the Burmah-Shell Oil Company's Union figure in the present dispute. The Caltex Oi! Company and the Standard Vacuum, Oil Company have each two terminals or installations in the City of Madras. The Burmah-Shell Oil Company has also its terminals. The Madras Kerosene Oil Workers' Union include in its membership the employees of all the three companies in their terminals in Madras. But, in these proceedings we-are not concerned with the employees in the terminals of installations of the Busman-Shell Oil Company in the City of ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees of Caltex by Petroleum Workers' Union Vs. Commissioner of La ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ173
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Burmah-Shell, Caltex and Standard Vacuum are important distributors of mineral oil and mineral oil products in India. Prior to April, 1959, the employees of these concerns--or rather, the bulk of them belonged to one or other of four Unions, viz., the Burmah-Shell Oil Company's Union, the Caltex Oil Company's Union, the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company's Union and the Madras Kerosene Oil Workers' Union. Neither the Burmah-Shell Oil Company nor the Burmah-Shell Oil Company's Union figure in the present dispute. The Caltex Oil Company and the Standard Vacuum Oil Company have each two terminals or installations in the City of Madras. The Burmah-Shell Oil Company has also its terminals. The Madras Kerosene Oil Workers' Union includes in its membership the employees of all the three companies in their terminals in Madras. But, in these proceedings we are not concerned with the employees in the terminals of installations of the Burmah-Shell Oil Company in the City of ...
Tag this Judgment!O. Rm. P. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad207
(1) This appeal arises from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, in I. A. No. 606 of 1952 in O. S. No. 33 of 1945 scaling down the decree passed in the suit by applying the provisions of Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, Act IV of 1938 (which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act). The decree-holder is the appellant.(2) In respect of a deposit made by his father with the respondents' grandfather the appellant obtained a decree in the suit referred to above on 27-12-1946 for a sum of Rs. 11459-14-0, with subsequent interest and costs. Both the respondents and the appellant filed respectively in this court an appeal and a memorandum of cross-objections against the decree. It is conceded that the respondents did not claim the benefit of the scaling down provisions of Act IV of 1938 at the time when the suit was pending in the trial court, or even at the time when the appeal was heard by this court. By the judgment and decree of this court dated 14-9-1951 the appeal as wel...
Tag this Judgment!Chunulal Seetaram Vs. G.S. Muthiah and Brothers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad359
1. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act against decisions of the Registrar regarding rectification of the Trade Marks Register. Under Section 76(1)"Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie from any decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder to the High Court having Jurisdiction." The office of the Registrar of Trade Marks is situated in Bombay. The Register of Trade Marks is kept at Bombay and the rectification is made in that register. ' It must, therefore, be held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High Court at Bombay. There is ample authority to support this conclusion in the decisions in Abdul Ghani v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1947 Lah 171, Tapton Tea Co. v. Liptons Ltd., and Satyadeo v. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy . Learned counsel for therespondents has also brought to our notice two un-reported decisions of the Calcutta and Punjab High Courts respectively taking t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kuttayan Alias Nambi thevar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ85
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli Dn. in S.C. No. 37 of 1958. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of his wife, the deceased Lakshmi.2. The deceased was the daughter of P.W. 7 and was married to the accused in Vaikasi 1957. The parties were related even before marriage. The accused is the nephew of P.W. 7, being his sister's son. This marriage had unfortunately not proved a success. The accused began to suspect the faithfulness of his wife. A month prior to the occurrence while the accused was an inpatient in the hospital, the deceased went to P.W. 2's house at about dusk time. P.W. 1 got information of it and took with her two other women and went to P.W. 2's house and there they saw P.W. 2 lying on a cot and the deceased sitting by his side and talking. P.W. 1 is a person known to both the accused and the deceased, being a resident of the same p...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Cunniah Naidu Vs. Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ7
1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes in H.R.A. No. 174 of 1956 against H.R.C. No. 2763 of 1955. The landlord who sought to evict his tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The petitioner's case was that he had been running a business in partnership with two or three others for over 40 years, orginally at No. 33, Bunder Street and later on at Nos. 32, 34, 35, 68, 71, 104 and 105 in Kotwal Bazaar. On account of differences between the partners of the firm, which was known as A.R. & Sons and A.R. Kanniah Naidu at Kotwal Bazaar, the partnership had to be dissolved, by a deed of dissolution, dated 29th April, 1955. The premises where this partnership was being carried on until the date of dissolution belonged to S.K.P.D. Charities, and when the partnership business was transferred from Bunder Street to the premises of the said charities, the lease-hold interest which the present petitioner had in t...
Tag this Judgment!