Chennai Court July 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 37 results (0.015 seconds)Arya Bhavan, Madras Vs. M.S. Narayana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad143; (1959)IILLJ622Mad
(1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 23-3-1956 in the following circumstances. The appellant is the management of a Restaurant carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of Arya Bhavan. In 1953, the appellant dismissed one of its employees, one Janardhana Bhatt on the ground that he was engaged in a scuffle with a customer of the restaurant and assaulted him in the course of the quarrel.This led to a reference by the Government of Madras of an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of Arya Bhavan, Madras with respect to the justification of the dismissal of the said Janardhan Bhatt. The workers were represented by the City Hotel Workers" Association. The Industrial Tribunal made an award that the dismissal of Janardhana Bhatt ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Karuppannan and anr. Vs. Sadaya Maistry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad147
1. This revision petition is directed against the finding on issue No. 12 in O.S. No. 10 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Court, Nilgiris, Ootacamund, relating to Court-fee payable on the plaint.2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. They obtained a decree for possession of certain properties in O.S. No. 81 of 1951 against the first respondent, but when they proceeded to execute the decree, they were obstructed by respondents 2 to 4. Thereupon, they filed E.A. No. 149 of 1956 under Order 21, Rule 99, Civil Procedure Code, for removal of obstruction. That application was dismissed. O.S. No. 10 of 1958 was instituted to set aside the order passed in E.A. No. 149 of 1956. The petitioners valued the suit as if the subject-matter had no market-value, and fixed Rs. 400 for the purpose of jurisdiction and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 30 under Section 50(3) of the Madras Court-fees Act. The suit was contested by the respondents, and one of the issues raised related to the Court-fee payable on the pl...
Tag this Judgment!K. Veeran Ambalam Vs. Vellaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad244
1. This second appeal Which raises interesting point of law under S. 77, Registration Act is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned subordinate Judge of Madurai in A. S. No. 39 of 1956, confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Madurai Taluk in O. S. No. 86 of 1955.(2) The facts are: The plaint properties belong to defendants 1 and 2. They usufructuarily mortgaged the said properties along with other properties to the plaintiff under a registered othi deed dated 25-5-1951. The plaintiff has been in possession of the properties from that date. The properties were leased back to defendants 1 and 2. They defaulted in the payment of rent. The plaintiff thereupon instituted S. C. S. No. 113 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Melur, for recovery of the said rent and obtained a decree. The defendants 1 and 2 thereupon requested the plaintiff to take a sale of the properties for Rs. 3075/- in discharge of the othi amount and the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Velusami and anr. Vs. Velusami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1962Mad153
Ramachandra Iyer, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 85 of 1953 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai. Plaintiffs and the 4th defendant are appellants in App. Nos. 272 and 425 of 1955 respectively. The suit was one for partition of the plaintiff's share in the properties set out in Schs. A to F to the plaint. The A schedule properties had been dedicated to a trust, and the parties are agreed that the trust was a private one; the only dispute between them is regarding a scheme for management for the performance of the trust. The B schedule relates to the lands, C schedule to a house, D and E schedules of the two outstanding and a business and F schedule to shares in Sri Meenakshi Mills alleged to be owned by the family.(2) One Chockalinga owned the properties. He left behind him two sons, Verusami and Tirupathi who are respectively first and fourth respondents in A. S. No. 272 of 1955 and 4th respondent and appellant in A. S. No. 425 of 1955. It will b...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Bhavan by Its Partner C.M. Sharma Vs. M.S. Narayana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ49
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J., dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 23rd March, 1956, in the following circumstances. The appellant is the management of a Restaurant carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of Arya Bhavan. In 1953 the appellant dismissed one of its employees, one Janardhana Bhatt on the ground that he was engaged in a scuffle with a customer of the restaurant and assaulted him in the course of the quarrel. This led to a reference by the Government of Madras of an industrial dispute between the workers and the management of Arya Bhavan, Madras, with respect to the justification of the dismissal of the said Janardhana Bhatt. The workers were represented by the City Hotel Workers' Association. The Industrial Tribunal made an award ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rathinam
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ449
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 4(1)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act for consuming liquor. The evidence of the doctor, who examined the petitioner, is that the pupils of the accused were dilated reacting to light sluggishly and that there was smell of arrack in the breath. On this evidence he was convicted. It is contended before me that the doctor was not authorised under Section 41-A, and therefore his evidence should not be acted upon. It is conceded that the doctor was not authorised under Section 41-A. But the fact he is not authorised does not mean that the evidence he gave is inadmissible. Section 41-A of the Madras Prohibition Act is intended to compel persons to be taken to a doctor and any resistance of submission to an examination entitles the persons to certain penalties according to the provisions of the section. Although under Section 41-A the police shall take him to a doctor, who is authorised, still the evidence given by the doctor, ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Karuppannan and anr. Vs. Sadaya Maistry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ440
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the finding on issue No. 12 in O.S. No. 10 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Court, Nilgiris, Ootacamund, relating to Court-fee payable on the plaint.2. The plaintiffs are the petitioners. They obtained a decree for possession of certain properties in O.S. No. 81 of 1951 against the first respondent, but when they proceeded to execute the decree, they were obstructed by respondents 2 to 4. Thereupon, they filed E.A. No. 149 of 1956 under Order 21, Rule 99, Civil Procedure Code, for removal of obstruction. That application was dismissed. O.S. No. 10 of 1958 was instituted to set aside the order passed in E.A. No. 149 of 1956. The petitioners valued the suit as if the subject-matter had no market-value, and fixed Rs. 400 for the purpose of jurisdiction and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 30 under Section 50(3) of the Madras Court-fees Act. The suit was contested by the respondents, and one of the issues raised related to the Court-...
Tag this Judgment!The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Referr ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad122; [1960]30CompCas67(Mad); 1960CriLJ356
1. This is a reference to us under Section 21(2) of the Chartered Accountants Act on the report of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in proceedings taken against the respondent-auditor on a complaint preferred by the Central Government in the following circumstances. The respondent is a member of a firm of Chartered Accountants in Madras, who are appointed auditors of the Adambakkam Janopakara Saswatha Nidhi Ltd., carrying on business in Alandur. The audit related to the period ending 31st March, 1957. The actual audit was done by V. Rajaram, the respondent, a partner of the audit firm. In the audit report by the respondent, dated 31st May, 1957, we find the following statement:We have not verified the securities and documents relating to the Book Debts, but have accepted the report of the Special Examiners who were appointed for the purpose by the Directors.To understand this it is necessary to refer to Article 103 of the Arti...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Pankajammal Vs. S. Sambandamurthi Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad263
1. The dispute is between decree-holders who obtained decrees against the same judgment-debtor. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for Rs. 640-12-9 in S.C. No. 874 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kancheepuram. The defendant obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor in S.C. No. 179 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput. The defendant filed E.P. No. 270 of 1946 on 16th December, 1946, for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's properties in execution of her (the defendant's) decree. The plaintiffs filed E.P. No. 166 of 1946 on 6th March, 1956, for attachment and sale of the same properties. The properties were sold on 21st March, 1949, in the execution petition filed by the defendant. Leave to bid and set-off the decree amount had been granted to the defendant. The sale price was Rs. 2,005. Since it was less than the amount due to the defendant, set-off was allowed as to the whole of the price. The sale was confirmed on 17th July, 1952 ...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Pankajammal Vs. S. Sambandamurthi Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ443
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The dispute is between decree-holders who obtained decrees against the same judgment-debtor. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for Rs. 640-12-9 in S.C. No. 874 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kancheepuram. The defendant obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor in S.C. No. 179 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput. The defendant filed E.P. No. 270 of 1946 on 16th December, 1946, for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's properties in execution of her (the defendant's) decree. The plaintiffs filed E.P. No. 166 of 1946 on 6th March, 1956, for attachment and sale of the same properties. The properties were sold on 21st March, 1949, in the execution petition filed by the defendant. Leave to bid and set-off the decree amount had been granted to the defendant. The sale price was Rs. 2,005. Since it was less than the amount due to the defendant, set-off was allowed as to the whole of the price. The sale was confirmed on ...
Tag this Judgment!