Chennai Court March 1959 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.
The Management of Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Vs. Sri Venkatiah and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ493
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Venkatiah, the first respondent, was an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd. He was granted six days leave with effect from 10th January, 1957. Allowing for the holidays that followed he should have joined duty on 19th January, 1957. But he did not do so. Nor did he apply for extension of leave as required by the Standing Orders of the Company. Standing Order 8(ii) of the Company provides that any employee who absents himself for eight consecutive working days without leave shall be deemed to have left the Company's service without notice thereby terminating his contract of service. The Standing Order, however, provides that if the employee gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the Management his absence shall be converted into leave without pay or dearness allowance. If it is also proved to the satisfaction of the Management that the absence was due to sickness, then the employee is entitled to have his absence converted into medical...
Muthumeenatchiya and anr. Vs. Assistant Director of Fisheries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1959
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ335Mad
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C.C. Nos. 476 and 513 of 1955. The appellants in these two cases claimed a compensation of Rs. 4,000 each from the opposite party, stating that their respective husbands who were employed as divers for chank-fishing received injuries by accident on 4 February 1955 and 7 March 1955 respectively while working as divers for the opposite party and died as a result of it, one on 8 February 1955 and the other on 10 March 1955.2. The opposite party disclaimed liability on the ground the husbands of the appellants were not workmen within the meaning of the term, as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Additional Commissioner, in both the cases, framed three issues.The first was whether the deceased were workmen within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act.The second was whether their death was due to an accident which aros...
Ramamoorthy and anr. Vs. the Commissioner, Tirupattur Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ284
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These revision petitions raise an interesting point.2. Within the limits of Tirupattur Municipality, there is a big banyan tree and under its spreading branches, a number of bunks are said to have been put up. These petitioners are carrying on their business there as bangle merchants. The land itself belongs to the local Devasthanam and rents are paid apparently to the Devasthanam also. In as much as these bunks are inside the municipal limits, they have got to take licences from the Municipality and such licences have been granted. But what has happened is, that on account of crows sitting on the branches of the banyan tree and their droppings fouling beneath, these merchants have put up flat pandals or awnings over their bunks. But they have been prosecuted by the Municipality, because they have taken out licences only for bunks and they have now put up unauthorised constructions beyond the terms of the licence.3. Both the Courts below convicted the petitioners f...
V.N.S. Chockalingam Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Income-tax Officer, Pudu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Mad509
1. Two points were urged by Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant in these appeals, against the common judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J., disposing of three writ petitions. The first point is that when there is a failure on the part of the assessee to submit an estimate under Section 18-A (3) the only consequence is that mentioned in Sub-section (9) (b) of that seetion, namely, that he would be liable to penalty which may be levied in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (9) (b) and that Sub-section (8) which provides for the payment of interest would have no application.Learned counsel was unable to cite any direct authority in support of this contention. He relied on an observation in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of Bombay in Commr. of Income-tax v. Jagdisbprasad Ramnath, , which runs thus :"The liability to pay advance tax in this case only arises if he submits an estimate, but if he fails or refuses to submit an estimate, no obligation to pay advance t...
V.N.S. Chockalingam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ131
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Two points were urged by Mr. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant in these appeals, against the common judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., disposing of three writ petitions. The first point is that when there is a failure on the part of the assessee to submit an estimate under Section 18-A(3) the only consequence is that mentioned in Sub-section (9)(b) of that section, namely, that he would be liable to penalty which may be levied in accordance with the proviso to Sub-section (9)(b) and that Sub-section (8) which provides for the payment of interest would have no application. Learned Counsel was unable to cite any direct authority in support of this contention. He relied on an observation in the Judgment of the learned Chief Justice of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagadishprasad Ramnath : AIR1955Bom255 , which runs thus:The liability to pay advance tax in this case only arises if he submits an estimate, but if he fails or refuses to submit an ...
V. N. S. Sockalingam Chettiar and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, Puduk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1959
Reported in: [1959]36ITR451(Mad)
RAJAMANNAR, C.J. - Two points were urged by Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellant, in these appeals, against the common judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., disposing of three writ petitons. The first point is that when there is a failure on the part of the assessee to submit an estimate under section 18A(3) the only consequence is that mentioned in sub-section (9)(b) if that section, namely, that he would be liable to penalty to which may be lived in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (9)(b) and that sub-section (8) which provides for the payment of interest would have no application. Learned counsel was unable to cite any direct authority in support of that contention. He relied on an observation in the judgment of the learned Chief Justice of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Prasad Ramanath which runs thus :'The liability to pay advance tax in this case only arises if he submits an estimate, but if he fails or refuses to submit an estimate, no obliga...
K.N. Ganesh Vs. Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1959Mad519
1. This is an application under Article 229 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records in R. O. C. 4561 /56-E on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and for quashing the order passed therein on 19-11-1956.2. The petitioner claims to have acquired for consideration the proprietorship of a Tamil quarterly journal entitled "Manikkodi" from its original proprietor. It is stated that thereafter, that is, on 3-2-1950, he declared himself a publisher of "Manikkodi" under Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867, which shall be hereafter referred to as the Act.That was followed by the publication of a monthly short story journal under the name of "Manikkodi" for sometime. The publication of the journal was discontinued thereafter: however the petitioner was running his office in the same premises under the name of Manikkodi Kariyalayam dealing with books, journals etc. He claims that his business opera...
K.N. Ganesh Vs. the Chief Presidency Magistrate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ314
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the record in R.O. C. No. 4561/56-E on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and for quashing the order passed therein on 19th November, 1956.2. The petitioner claims to have acquired for consideration the proprietorship of a Tamil quarterly journal entitled 'Manikkodi' from its original proprietor. It is stated that thereafter, that is on 3rd February, 1950, he declared himself a publisher of ' Manikkodi' under Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867 which shall be hereafter referred to as the Act. That was followed by the publication of a monthly short story journal under the name of ' Manikkodi ' for sometime. The publication of the journal was discontinued thereafter ; however the petitioner was running his office in the same premises under the name of Manikkodi Kariyalayam dealing with books,...
Ganapathia Pillai Vs. Ekambara Moopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad84
(1) A question of limitation is involved in these two civil revision petitions.(2) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted two small cause suits against the two respondents who had executed promissory notes to him, one on 8th July 1952, and the other on 9th August 1952. Both the suits were filed on 4th June 1957 and in order to escape the bar of limitation reliance was placed upon the provisions of Madras Act V of 1954 and Act I of 1955. The combined effect of these two Acts was to extend the period of limitation for a period of one year, one month and 26 days. The suits were not laid even within the extended period. The District Munsif dismissed both the suits on the ground of limitation.(3) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under S. 4 of the Act I of 1955, the debt became payable in instalments and consequently the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to this case would be Art. 74 and not Art. 73, S. 4(1) of Act I of 1955 enacts.'Notwithstanding any la...
Ganapathia Pillai Vs. Ekambara Mooppan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1959
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ413
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. A question of limitation is involved in these two Civil Revision Petitions.2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted two small causes suits against the two respondents who had executed promissory notes to him, one on 8th July, 1952, and the other on 9th August, 1952. Both the suits were filed on 4th June, 1957 and in order to escape the bar of limitation reliance was placed upon the provisions of Madras Act V of 1954 and Act I of 1955. The combined effect of these two Acts were to extend the period of limitation for a period of 1 year, 1 month and 26 days. The suits were not laid even within this extended period. The District Munsif dismissed both the suits on the ground of limitation.3. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 4 of Act I of 1955, the debt became payable in instalments and consequently the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to this case would be Article 74 and not Article 73. Section 4(1) of Act I of 1955...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »