Chennai Court July 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 37 results (0.014 seconds)Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. V. Rajaram ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ542
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.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 Ar...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kamaraj Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ358; (1960)1MLJ12
1. These are connected appeals preferred against the convictions and sentences by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai Division, in Sessions Case No. 151 of 1958.2. The facts are : P.W. 4 is the wife of accused 1 and the sister of P.W. 5, the husband of P.W. 3. P.W. 4 and accused 1 lived as husband and wife for six months of one year in P.W. 5's house eking out their livelihood as agricultural labourers. This married life proved unhappy. They separated. Accused 1 went back to his village and P.W. 4 continued to live with P.W. 5. There was a subsequent Panchayat to reconcile the couple and this failed.'3. On Friday, 10th May, 1957, at about 11 A.M. accused 1 accompanied by accused 2 and 3 came to P.W. 5's place and in the presence of P.W. 6 wanted P.W. 5 to send back P.W. 4 with accused. P.W. 5 promised to do so after the inauspicious days (Dog Days) were over. Accused 2 insisted on P.W. 5 sending P.W. 4 with accused 1 forthwith. P.W. 6 interceded and advised that it would be more prop...
Tag this Judgment!Kannappan (M.) and ors. Vs. Hoe and Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ510Mad
ORDER1. We agree with the learned Judge that under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has no Jurisdiction to make an order at the instance of an employee who has been dismissed or retrenched. It is not within the province of the Commissioner to decide the question whether the dismissal or retrenchment of a workman was lawful. Authority for this position is to be found in the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in Tukaram v. General Manager, Central Railway 1957 L.L.J. 250 where it was held that the Payment of Wages authority has no jurisdiction to decide on an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act whether the dismissal of an employee was lawful or unlawful and that such a question would not come within the purview of the special tribunals set up under the Act. The appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Tiruchirapalli Vs. Velan Chettiar, Son of Muthukarupp ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ364
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code and relates to the period for which the trustees, who have been removed by the decree of the lower Court, have to account. The Collector of Tiruchirapalli, who was the plaintiff in the suit, is the appellant.2. The respondents, who number about 31, are the descendants of one V.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar. Muthukaruppan Chettiar founded several charities, one of which was an Annadanam charity at Tirumayam in Tiruchirapalli District. The appellant claimed that the properties set out in Schedules A to D to the plaint belonged to the Anandanam trust established by V.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar, that the respondents asserted a hostile title to the trust and that they were guilty of breaches of trust, and prayed for their removal and for accounts.3. Schedule A to the plaint is the chatram in which Annadanam is to be performed. B Schedule covered lands in Olakkudipatti village. C Schedule item 1 i...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Semalai Pannadi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad240; 1960CriLJ834
Ramaswami, J.(1) This appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal of Semalai Pannadi (accused 1), for an offence under S. 302 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C. No. 142 of 1958. He was convicted under S. 304 (Part II) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. But he has not preferred an appeal against the said conviction and sentence. The State also appeals against the acquittal of accused 2.(2) The case against accused 1 was: the deceased Kanda Pannadi was a ryot cultivating Naduvakadu on lease from one Murugana Goundan. To the west of this land is the land of Ramana Goundan called Parambukorai. The accused Semalai Pannadi was the Tannirkatti of the deceased Kanada Pannadi till Chitrai last year when his services were dispensed with. Thereafter he became the Thannirkatti of Rama Goundan. These lands were irrigated with the water of Puthuvaikal. This water was diverted to these lands by Koppus. Parambukorai of Ramana Goundan in irrigated t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Orr and Sons (Private), Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ337Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In March 1956, various disputes arose between P. Orr & Sons, Ltd., and some of their employees. On 20 August 1956, conciliation proceedings were started in respect of these disputes. In September 1956, the management held an enquiry into certain allegations of misconduct against three of their employees and finding the allegations proved to their satisfaction wanted to dismiss them. But as the conciliation proceedings were pending, the management applied for the requisite permission to conciliation officer under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The conciliation officer advised the management to await his report in the conciliation proceedings and thereafter take action. The conciliation officer drew up his report on 9 January 1957 and despatched copies of it to the Government, the management and the union. The management received its copy on 4 February 1957. Thereupon on 5 February 1957 they passed an order dismissing the three employees with effe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G. Vasantha Pai
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ21
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are two applications filed by an advocate of this Court to expunge the remarks and observations against him appearing as counsel for the defendant in three suits, C.S. Nos. 54 and 55 and O.M.S. No. 9 of 1957 made by Subrahmanyam, J., in his judgment, dated 28th October, 1958, disposing of the said three suits. A list of ten passages from the judgment is given as containing remarks and observations sought to be expunged. In the above suits the plaintiff was Mrs. Leelie Kuriakose and the sole defendant was her husband, Mr. T.N. Kuriakose. C.S. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1957 were originally filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, but were transferred to this Court on the application of the defendant. In C.S. No. 54 of 1957 the wife prayed for separate maintenance from the defendant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In C.S. No. 55 of 1957 she prayed for recovery of possession of a car, furniture and wedding presents which according to her were her exclusive ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Settlement Officer, Pudukottai Vs. K. Karunagiri Muthiah Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad177
ORDER(1) The respondent, Karunagiri Muthiah Naicker, was the owner of the village of D'Edayapatti. After Madras Act 26 of 1948 came into force, the Assistant Settlement Officer took proceedings suo motu under S. 9 of the Act to determine whether D'Edayapatti was an Inam estate as defined by that Act. On 11-4-1950 he came to the conclusion that it was an inam estate. Subsequently on 7-8-1951, the Government notified the estate under S. 3 of the Act. Meanwhile the landholder appealed to the Estates Abolition Tribunal against the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer. That appeal was dismissed on 12-9-1952, as barred by limitation. Against that order of dismissal the landholder preferred W. P. No. 55 of 1953 to this court and obtained a ruled setting aside the order of the tribunal dated 12-9-1952.The Tribunal therefore had to hear the appeal afresh. After further hearing, on 19-1-1954, the tribunal set aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and remanded the proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Cauvery Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ272
ORDERRamachandra Ayyar, J.1. This petition has been posted before me for directions as to its transfer to the City Civil Court, Madras. This petition is under Section 141 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for extending the time for registration of the modification of a charge. It was presented in this Court on 2nd May, 1959. On 29th May, 1959, the Union Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956, empowered all the District Courts in the Union of India to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court under the sections specified in the said Notification. Under the above Notification the District Courts of the State were empowered to exercise jurisdiction under Section 141 of the Act. The Office of the Registrar seeks the direction of this Court as to whether O.P. No 120 of 1959 could be transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras, in pursuance of that Notification.2. Section 10(1) of the Act runs thus:'(1) The Co...
Tag this Judgment!C. Gurusamy Konar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1959]10STC553(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A. S. No. 63 of 1955 reversing a thoroughly ill-considered judgment of the learned district Munsif of Kumbakonam is O.S. No. 46 of 1954.2. The case for the plaintiff is : He is a paddy and rice merchant in Papanasam having his branches at Saliyamangalam and also at Sathur in Ramnad District. In the course of business he has to transport rice and paddy from one branch to another. This he had to do after obtaining necessary permits from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam. He made one such application on 26th October, 1953, for transporting 150 bags of rice from Saliyamangalam to Sathur. The permit was refused illegally by the officer. Representations to the District Commercial Tax Officer were of no avail. At the time when the application was made, the price of rice was Rs. 45 per bag. On 12th November, 1953, when a permit was issued to him the price ...
Tag this Judgment!