Chennai Court April 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 4 of about 37 results (0.010 seconds)Sambasiva Chetti Vs. Mannankatti
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)IILLJ630Mad
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (which would be referred to hereafterwards as the Act) of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding compensation to the respondent for the fatal injury sustained by his wife, Vellachi, in the course of her employment. The employer is the appellant. The deceased was one of the coolies employed in the construction of a house by the appellant. The construction of the building began several months previous to the accident and by June 1957 the ground floor had been completed and a terrace was in the process of being put up. On 17 June 1956, the work on the terrace was proceeding. The deceased Vellachi was engaged in bringing water for mixing up the jelly for the construction. It is now found that the place where the jelly was being mixed up was just about a foot away from the unprotected edge of the terrace. The deceased, after pouring water on the jelly evidentl...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. T.M. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad437; 1959CriLJ1187; (1959)2MLJ8
1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent ny the Additional First Claas Magistrate, Trivellore, in C. C. No. 20 of 1958, on his file.2. The respondent was the President of the Panchayat Board of Tirumallaivayal. He auctioned the right to collect the fees from the stalls to be put in Avadi during Congress Session in 1955, P.W. 1 took it for Rs. 4090. But the auction in favour of P.W. 1 was set aside and the accused was therefore under an obligation to return the amount. The collection of the amount is not disputed by the accused. He had deposited some amount in the Sub Treasury and some amount in the post office savings bank. The amount that he had deposited in the treasury was withdrawn on 29-12-1954 and that was about Rs. 2145 and Rs. 1000 was withdrawn from the post office savings batik on 28-12-1954. This fact is also not disputed. The balance of Rs. 945 was withdrawn later. The withdrawal of these sums, therefore from the Sub Treasury and the post of...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi Gounder Vs. Narayanaswamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad121
(1) This appeal against the appellate judgment of the District Judge of South Arcot is preferred by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 304 of 1943.(2) That was a suit for partition against the respondents and others. A consent decree was passed in that case which was a combination of a preliminary and final decrees. According to the terms of that decree, six items of immoveable properties owned by the parties were directed to be divided with the help of panchayatdars and the plaintiff was to take 1/3rd share, the first defendant 1/3rd share and the remaining 1/3rd share was to go to the other defendants. The date of this decree was 27-10-1944 E. P. No. 220 of 1955, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the first defendant for execution of the decree in so far as it related to partition and separate possession of these six items of immoveable properties.The appellant, who was respondent in that execution petition, put forward the plea that the panchayatdars had effected division of...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathambi Goundar Vs. Narayanaswamy Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ467
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal against the appellate judgment of the District Judge of South Arcot is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 304 of 1943.2. That was a suit for partition against the respondent and others. A consent decree was passed in that case which was a combination of a preliminary and final decrees. According to the terms of that decree, six items of immoveable properties owned by the parties were directed to be divided with the help of panchayatdars and the plaintiff was to take 1/3rd share, the first defendant 1/3rd share and the remaining 1/3rd share was to go to the other defendants. The date of this decree was 27th October, 1944. E.P. No. 220 of 1955, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the first defendant for execution of the decree in so far as it related to partition and separate possession of these six items of immoveable properties. The appellant, who was respondent in that Execution Petition, put forward the plea that the panchaya...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Vs. Sinnachami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ512
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-Collector of Dindigul in C.T.P.A. No. 57 of 1957, whereby that Court held that the petitioner was in arrears and passed an order under Section 3(4)(b) of the Madras Cultivatings Tenants Protection Act evicting him from the lands. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent, who was the lessee from the owner of the property claimed that he had sub-let the lands to the petitioner orally and that about 13 kalams of paddy were due from him by way of rent. It was stated by the respondent in his petition that the petitioner surrendered possession soon after harvest of the kalam crop. It was then stated as follows. That the owner of the property again leased the property to the respondent and he was in actual possession of the lands having manured the lands and ploughed the same. While so, on 15th July, 1957, the petitioner entered the land unlawfully and wanted to plough. In this the petitioner was prevented by the res...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Ar. Rm. Umayal Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1959Mad391
Subrahmanyam, J. 1. The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted C. S, No. 311 of 1951 on the file of this Court. It was dismissed OH 22-9-1953 by Ramaswami Gounder J. sitting on the original side of this court. The petitioner's appeal from that judgment and decree, viz., O. S. A. No. 2 of 1958 was dismissed by us sitting as a Division Bench of this Court on 23rd January 1959, The Petitioner applies that a certificate be granted to him under Article 133 of the Constitution to enable him to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree pronounced in O. S. A. No. 2 of 1958,2. Article 133(1) of the Constitution (so far as material) is in these terms: 'Article 133(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies- (a) that the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute in the court of first instanceand still in dispute on appeal was and is not less...
Tag this Judgment!S.Rm.Ar.S.Sp. Sathappa Chettiar Vs. Ar.Rm. Umayal Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ300
ORDERSubrahmanyam, J.1. The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted C.S. No. 311 of 1951 on the file of this Court. It was dismissed on 22nd September, 1953, by Ramaswami Goundar, J., sitting on the Original Side of this Court. The petitioner's appeal from that judgment and decree, viz-, O.S.A. No. 2 of 1958, was dismissed by us sitting as a Division Bench of this Court on 23rd January, 1959. The petitioner applies that a certificate be granted to him under Article 133 of the Constitution to enable him to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment and decree pronounced in O.S.A. No. 2 of 1958.2. Article 133(1) of the Constitution (so far as material) is in these terms:Article 133(1).--An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies--(a) that the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance and still in dispute on appeal was...
Tag this Judgment!