Chennai Court April 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 3 of about 37 results (0.017 seconds)R.K.A. Poonuraman Vs. Rajappa Malavarayar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad353
(1) This civil revision petition is against the order of the learned District Munsif of Tiruvaiyaru in O. P. No. 25 of 1958, filed under S. 115 C.P.C. The facts are briefly these. The respondent in this civil revision petition filed an application under S. 19(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, Act X of 1950, questioning the validity of the election of the respondent in the lower court as a member of the Panchayat board. The contention of the respondent before the lower court was that on the date of the nomination, namely, 6-5-1958, as well as on the date of election, namely, 7-5-1958, the petitioner in this civil revision petition was interested in a subsisting contract made by the panchayat board, Budalore in 1955 for constructing an overhead tank in the panchayat area.The petitioner was the President of the Panchayat Board during the lease period and entered into a contract with the board in his own personal capacity to construct a water tank and not in the capacity of Preside...
Tag this Judgment!Trichy-srirangam Transport Company (Private), Ltd. Vs. Industrial Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ515Mad; (1960)IIMLJ22
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Trichy-Srirangam Transport Company (Private), Ltd., runs a number of buses in and between the towns of Tiruchirappalli and Srirangam. The employees of this company are represented by two unions, one called the Trichy District Motor Workers' Union and the other called the General Workers' Union. Various disputes arose between the company and its employees, and by an order which they made on 29 April 1957 the Government of Madras referred them for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The tribunal pronounced its award on 11 November 1957. The present petition has been filed by the company for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the tribunal.2. The tribunal dealt with eight matters. The petition was argued before me only as regards five of these matters. The correctness of the award as regards items 1, 3 and 4 therein has not been questioned. I need not, therefore, go into them.3. Item 2 of the award dealt with the demand of t...
Tag this Judgment!R.K.A. Ponnuraman Vs. Rajappa Malavarayar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ38
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the learned District Munsif of Tiruvaiyaru in O.P. No 25 of 1958 filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are briefly these. The respondent in this Civil Revision Petition filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, Act X of 1950, questioning the validity of the election of the respondent in the lower Court as a member of the Panchayat Board. The contention of the respondent before the Lower Court was that on the date of the nomination, namely 6th May, 1958, as well as on the date of election, namely 7th May, 1958, the Petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition was interested in a subsisting contract made by the Panchayat Board, Budalore in 1955 for constructing an overhead tank in the Panchayat area. The petitioner was the President of the Panchayat Board during the lease period and entered into a contract with the Board in his own personal capacity to con...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Printing Works Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ619Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The proprietor of the Royal Printing Works, a printing establishment on Mount Road, is the petitioner. In October 1957 he passed an order dismissing one Manickam, a watchman then in his employ. In December 1957 he dismissed another Kuppuswami who was working in the composing section. In respect of both these matters and certain others, industrial disputes were raised which were referred by the Government of Madras for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. So far as Manickam and Kuppuswami are concerned, the tribunal passed an order on 14 February 1958 directing their reinstatement. The present petition has been filed for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash this order of the tribunal.2. The case relating to Manickam may be first disposed of. He was a watchman in. the printing establishment of the petitioner from January 1957. On 27 September 1957 another employee named Balaraman reported to the proprietor that he had seen Manickam taking an ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Lakshmipathy Nayakar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ254
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. These are applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ mandamus and certiorari respectively to direct the respondent to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right, possession and enjoyment of the Melakulam and Appasamudram tanks within the limits of what was once Idayakottai zamin in Palani taluk in Madurai district, and to call for the records and quash the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai, in R.A. No. 19-1953, dated 14th July, 1953, which affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 29th September, 1952, made in Case Nos. 9 to 14 PLN 51, holding that a ryotwari patta in respect of the tanks referred to above could not be granted to the petitioner. In view of the general importance of the questions raised, these petitions have been posted before a Full Bench.2. The petitioner was the zamindar of Idayakottai which is situated in Palani taluk in Madurai district. The zamin was notified as...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the hindu, Madras (Kasturi and Sons Ltd.) Vs. the Workin ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad196; (1959)IILLJ348Mad
ORDER(1) From about the middle of 1950 R. Narasimhan was a Sub-Editor of the Hindu. It was part of his duties to edit the reports of mofussil correspondence of the paper from the Tamil Nad area. On 23-6-1957 C. R. Sampath, the Salem correspondent of the Hindu, sent a report which ran as follows:'Krishnaswami Chetti, a member of the local Drawida Munnetra Kazhagam, was stabbed with knife on June 21 at 1 a. m. near Salem market railway station and received injuries on the hand and stomach. He was admitted into Government Headquarters Hospital and was later discharged. In his complaint to the police, the injured man stated that he was stabbed by one Anbanandam, belonging to Dravida Kazhagam, due to party feelings. Sub-Inspector S. Gopalakrishnan of Shevapet has registered a case under S. 324, I.P.C. (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) against Anbanandam. No arrest have (sic) been made so far.'....... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........News exclusive to the Hindu:...
Tag this Judgment!Qhamrunissa Begum Vs. Fathima Begum and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ354
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1167 of 1958 is a petition to revise the order of the City Civil Judge in O.S. No. 2917 of 1955 holding that the plaint has not been properly valued and that the plaintiff should pay Court-fee on the market value of five items of properties, namely, items, 5, 10, 11, 17 and 18 of Schedule B to the plaint. The suit was one for partition between certain Muhammadan co-sharers of the estate of one Mohamed Ahmathulla Badsha Sahib, who died on 4th January, 1955. Defendants 1 to 8 are the co-sharers. Defendants 9 to 11 are the children of the 4th defendant, one of the co-sharers. They are strangers so far as the partition of the property is concerned. The plaintiff claims 21/192 share. There is no dispute about the shares of the various parties. The immoveable properties consisted of 9 items of properties. It is admitted that they all belonged to the estate of the deceased. C Schedule comprised outstanding due to the estate and there is no dispute in reg...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of 'The Hindu' Vs. the Working Journalists of 'The Hind ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ272
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. From about the middle of 1950 R. Narasimhan was a Sub-editor of The Hindu. It was part of his duties to edit the reports of mofussil correspondents of the paper from the Tamil Nad area. On 23rd June, 1957 C.R. Sampath, the Salem Correspondent of The Hindu, sent a report which ran as follows:KrishnasWami Chetti, a member of the local Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, was stabbed with a knife on June 21, at 1 a.m. near Salem Market Railway Station and received injuries on the hand and stomach. He was admitted into Government Headquarters Hospital and was later discharged. In his complaint to the police, the injured man stated that he was stabbed by one Anbananciam, belonging to Dravida Kazhagam, due to party feelings. Sub-Inspector S. Gopalakrishnan of Shevapet has registered a case under Section 324, Indian Penal Code (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) against Anbanandam. No arrest have (sic) been made so far. News exclusive to The Hindu : Security pro...
Tag this Judgment!O.R.M.M.S.P.S.V. Meyyappa Chettiar by His Power-of-attorney Agent V. E ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ555
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in the following six suits : O.S. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 21, 22 and 24 of 1949. All the suits were for contribution, and, in the alternative, for partition, against defendants 1 to 17 in those suits, who are the successors-in-interest of one AL. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar. Some other defendants were also impleaded in all these suits, but as against them, no relief of contribution was claimed. The alternative claim for partition of the properties was given up in the lower Court and is not in issue now. The appellant in A.S. No. 150 of 1952 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1949. The appellant in A.S. No. 151 of 1952 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1949, and the appellants in A.S. No. 580 of 1955 which was originally filed in the District Court, West Tanjore, but subsequently transferred to this Court are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 21 of 1949.2. All the suits related to a common clai...
Tag this Judgment!Hatim Mahmood Vs. A.C.T.O.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1959]10STC510(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. In this case there has been transfer of a business in ball bearings from one Balakrishnan to the present petitioner, Hatim Mahmood. The transfer was made on 20th March, 1955. ' In respect of the alleged amount due by way of sales tax for 1951-52 and 1952-53 under alleged re-assessment as per assessment orders dated 6th April, 1955, and 27th January, 1956, notice of demand had been issued on 27th April, 1955, and 18th February, 1956, to this Hatim Mahmood. The demand had not been complied with by this Hatim Mahmood, and, therefore, distress warrant had beed issued by the Magistrate.2. The point for consideration is against whom this distress warrant should be issued. Rule 21-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules shows that both the transferor and transferee will be liable. This must be so, because the Government cannot be done out of the sales tax by each passing the buck to the other.3. In the present case for the reasons set out in the affidavit of Balakrishnan ...
Tag this Judgment!