Chennai Court April 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 37 results (0.018 seconds)Muthukumara Padayachi Vs. Sambandam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ20
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam, in P. No. 1115 of 1958, ascertaining the arrears of rent payable by the petitioner-tenant at 137 kalams and 3 marakkals of paddy and 10 bundles of straw, and direction that, if the tenant failed to pay the same on or before 6th March, 1959 and to report the fact by the next day, reviction would follow. The order,on the face of it, is wrong. There is no ascertainment, in terms of cash, of the arrears of rent. Secondly, the direction has been made for the tenant to pay the landlord and not into Court. It has been held in this Court that such a direction is illegal. The order for eviction could not be sustained on that ground. 2. But, Mr. K. Raman, llearned Counsel for the petitioner, has taken another line of attack to the order of the lower Court. Originally, there was a contract of lease, Echibit P-1, in regard to the property, executed by the tenant in favour of the landholder on 1st J...
Tag this Judgment!Proprietor, Swarnambiga Motor Service, Palanganathan Post, Madurai Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad559; (1959)IILLJ617Mad
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the employer against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Madras, in W.C. No. 540 of 1956, granting a sum of Rs. 1470/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent while working for the appellant.2. When the matter came up before the Commissioner, the employer and the workman agreed as follows: '(1) The monthly wage of the applicant was Rs. 139, (2) The percentage of loss of earning capacity, if any, sustained by the applicant will be estimated by a Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Services. Madras, and the estimate of the Board will be accepted as final and binding on them and (31 The employer will pay compensation to the applicant on the basis mentioned in items 1 and 2 above.' In accordance with that agreement the matter was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed the loss of earning capacity sustained by the respondent in respect of a...
Tag this Judgment!The Proprietor, Swarnambiga Motor Service Vs. M. Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ492
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal at the instance of the employer against the Order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, in W.C. No. 540 of 1956, granting a sum of Rs. 1,470 as compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent while working for the appellant.2. When the matter came up before the Commissioner, the employer and the workman agreed as follows:(1) The monthly wage of the applicant was Rs. 139. (a) The percentage of loss of earning rapacity, if any, sustained by the applicant will be estimated by a Medical Board constituted by the Director of Medical Service, Madras, and the estimate of the Board will be accepted as final and binding on them and (3) The employer will pay compensation to the applicant on the basis mentioned in items 1 and 2 above.In accordance with that agreement the matter was referred to the Medical. Board and the Medical Board assessed the loss of earning capacity sustained by the respondent in respect of a part...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Oil Mill, Erode Vs. Coimbatore Market Committee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad160
(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to forbear from enforcing its notice, S. No. 610 dated 11-7-1957, calling upon the petitioner to pay cess for the groundnuts purchased from 23-11-1955 to 30-6-1957, under S. 11(1) of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act 1933, Rule 28(1) of the Madras Commercial Crops Market Rules, 1948, and bylaw 23 of the Coimbatore Market Committee by-laws.(2) The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business at Erode in the name of the Shanmuga Oil Mill engaged in the purchase and sale of groundnuts. He has taken a licence for dealing in groundnuts under Ss. 5(1) and 5(3) of the Madras Commercial Crops Act (Madras Act XX of 1933), which I shall refer hereafter as the Act. The first respondent is the Coimbatore Market Committee constituted under S. 4-A of the Act. Coimbatore District is a notified area under the Act in respect of groundnuts and certain other commercial cro...
Tag this Judgment!N. Saradambal Ammal Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad21; (1959)2MLJ339
1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Revenue Board, Madras, the Chief Controlling Authority, to refer the case to the High Court under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act (which will for the sake of convenience be referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner, Saradambal Ammal, and two others, namely, Nooruddin Sahib and Natesa Gramani, entered into a tripartite arrangement on 16th February, 1956, under which the properties which I shall refer as A,B and C were exchanged inter se so that Saradambal got C properties, Nooruddin Sahib A properties and Natesa Gramani B properties. The document, which is styled as exchange, was stamped as two exchanges under Article 26 of the Indian Stamp Act. It was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet. That Officer received the document, but, as he felt a doubt about the sufficiency of the stamp, he referred the matter to the Registrar of Assurances, Madras, who...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vajrapuri Naidu and anr. Vs. the New theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad108
(1) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. in C. M. P. No. 1835 of 1958 in A. S. No. 255 of 1957 on the file of this court. The appellants before us were the respondents in the petition, and the New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., the respondent before us, was the petitioner in that proceeding. That was an application made under S. 9(1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, Act III of 1922, as amended by Madras Act, 19 of 1955, to direct the appellants before us to sell to the respondent the land on which the theatre constructed by the respondent stands.(2) The facts which led up to the appeal in the High Court and the application for a direction to sell the land are the following. A piece of vacant land situate within the limits of the Coimbatore Municipality belongs to the appellants, who are mother and son. They granted a lease of the property to me Abhirama Chettiar by a registered lease deed dated 19-9-1934, for a perio...
Tag this Judgment!N. Saradambal Ammal Vs. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ339
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Revenue Board, Madras, the Chief Controlling Authority, to refer the case to the High Court under Section 57(1) of the Indian Stamp Act (which will for the sake of convenience be referred to as the Act).2. The petitioner, Saradambal Ammal, and two others, namely, Nooruddin Sahib and Natesa Gramani, entered into a tripartite arrangement on 16th February, 1956, under which the properties which I shall refer as A,B and C were exchanged inter se so that Saradambal got C properties, Nooruddin Sahib A properties and Natesa Gramani B properties. The document, which is styled as exchange, was stamped as two exchanges under Article 26 of the Indian Stamp Act. It was presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar of Saidapet. That Officer received the document, but, as he felt a doubt about the sufficiency of the stamp, he referred the matter to the Registrar o...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vajrapuri Naidu and anr. Vs. the New theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ469
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in C.M.P. No. 1835 of 1958 in A.S. No. 255 of 1957 on the file of this Court. The appellants before us were the respondents in the petition, and The New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd., the respondent before us, was the petitioner in that proceeding. That was an application made under Section 9(1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (III of 1922), as amended by Madras Act (XIX of 1955), to direct the appellants before us to sell to the respondent the land on which the theatre constructed by the respondent stands.2. The facts which led up to the appeal in the High Court and the application for a direction to sell the land are the following. A piece of vacant land situate within the limits of Coimbatore Municipality belongs to the appellants, who are mother and son. They granted a lease of the property to one Abhirama Chettiar by a registered lease-deed dated 19th ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N.K.P. Thirupathi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ540
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These twenty-three petitioners are accused 1 to 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 to 26 in C.C. Nos. 2053 to 2078 of 1957 on the file of the Second Class Magistrate, Tirumayam. They were all convicted under Section 9 of the Madras Gaming Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. In addition accused 26 was convicted under Section 8 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200.2. The accused are said to have been playing cards in a common gaming house run by accused 26. The Sub-Inspector raided the place and it is said that the Deputy Superintendent of Police also was in the party of the police who raided the place. Instead of issuing a warrant under Section 5(1) of the Madras Gaming Act, under Sub-section (2) of Section 5, any police officer having power to issue a warrant under Sub-section (1), may instead of doing so, himself exercise all or any of the powers exercisable under such warrant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, therefore, instead of issuing a warrant ma...
Tag this Judgment!Udaya Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad488; [1959]36ITR469(Mad)
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Incomers Appellate Tribunal of Bombay has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:'Whether the losses claimed by the assessee for assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 require in law to be determined therefore and carried forward to he set off against its assessments for 1950-51 and 1951-52?'The relevant facts are these: The assesses is a private limited company deriving income from three heads or sources, viz., interest on securities, dividends from companies and its business in shares and stocks. During the year 1948-49, it received Rs. 18000 by way of interest on securities, Rs. 13084 by way of dividends from companies and sustained a loss of Rs. 1,32,607 in its business. During the year 1949-1950 it received Rs. 3000 as interest on securities, Rs. 7795 as dividends from companies and sustained in its business a loss of Rs. 35,252. During the year 1950-51 it derived a net aggregate in...
Tag this Judgment!