Chennai Court September 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 4 of about 63 results (0.031 seconds)Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Madukkarai Cement Works, Madukkarai Vs. Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad77; (1960)ILLJ192Mad; (1959)1MLJ221
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Minimum Wages Petition No. 26 of 1956 on the file of the Labour Court at Coimbatore and quash an order passed by that Tribunal dated 20-12-1957.2. The Associated Cement Co. Ltd. carrying on the business of manufacturing cement at Madukkarai is the petitioner. The proceedings out of which this petition arises originated in an application under Section 20(2) of the Act filed by the Labour Inspector of the Central Government at Coimbatore before the Labour Court -- which is the authority constituted under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 -- for a direction under Sub-section 3 of Section 20, on the allegation that the respondent there, the Associated Cement Co. Ltd., had paid less than the minimum rate of wages to certain of the company's employees.3. The workmen to whom according to the Labour Inspector wages less than the minimum wages had been paid were those em...
Tag this Judgment!Volkart Brothers, Madras Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad236; [1959]10STC598(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.(1) These proceedings related to the assessment years, 1950-51, when the President's Sales Tax Continuance Order, 1950, was in force. The only item of the assessee's turnover, with which we need concern ourselves, at this stage is what was dealt with as the 'second item' by the Tribunal, sales of machinery etc., to buyers outside the State, the turnover of which was Rs. 3,02,639-3-0. The contention of the assessee was that these were sales which fell within the scope of explanation to Art. 286(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that, as the machinery in question had been sold in the course of inter-State trade to persons residing outside the State for consumption in those States, those sales could not be taxed within the State of Madras, nor could they be treated as intra-State sales, as far as Madras State was concerned. Even in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee produced certain affidavits, which no doubt covered only a portion of the disputed turnover, in s...
Tag this Judgment!Addison and Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ226; [1960]11STC345(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee was a dealer in automobiles among other articles. Two of the items finally included by the Tribunal to the assessable turnover of the assessee for the assessment year 1951-52 were, (i) Rs. 14,42,225-5-9 and (ii) the amounts collected by the assessee by way of tax under Section 8-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act -the exact amount has yet to be ascertained, as the Tribunal held that the Government were held to assess tax only at 3 pies per rupee. The first of these items represented the purchase price paid to the assessee-firm for the sale of motor cars to its sub-dealers, who resided outside the State of Madras and who were bound under the terms of their contract with the assessee to sell those cars within their respective areas, all of which were outside the State of Madras. Those cars were however delivered to the sub-dealers or their agents at Madras and were subsequently taken by those sub-dealers outside the State for sale within their respective...
Tag this Judgment!Vazir Begum Ammal and anr. Vs. Seth Tholaram
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ142
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The point for determination in this appeal is whether the promissory note, Exhibit A-1, was executed by defendants 1 and 2, and, if it was, whether it is not supported by consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the promissory note was executed by defendants 1 and 2 and that it was supported by consideration. The defendants appeal from that judgment.2. The promissory note purports to have been executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the wife of defendant 1. The promissory note is in a printed form. The evidence of P.Ws. regarding the execution of the promissory note is this. Defendant 1 filled up the blanks in the printed form. The printed form as filled up by defendant 1 was the promissory note for Rs. 6,200 payable with interest at 12 per cent, per annum for value received in cash. It contains the words, 'We promise'. The agreement between defendant 1 and P.W. 1 was that the promissory note should be execute...
Tag this Judgment!The Associated Cement Co., Ltd., Madukkarai Cement Works Vs. Labour In ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ221
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Minimum Wages Petition No. 26 of 1956 on the file of the Labour Court at Coimbatore and quash an order passed by that Tribunal, dated 20th December, 1957.2. The Associated Cement Co., Ltd., carrying on the business of manufacturing cement at Madukkarai is the petitioner. The proceedings out of which this petition arises originated in an application under Section 20(2) of the Act filed by the Labour Inspector of the Central Government at Coimbatore before the Labour Court - which is the authority constituted under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - for a direction under Sub-section (3) of Section 20, on the allegation that the respondent there, the Associated Cement Co., Ltd., had paid less than the minimum rate of wages to certain of the company's employees.3. The workmen to whom according to the Labour Inspector wages less than the minimum wages had been paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Periaswamy Goundar Vs. Municipal Council, by Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ398
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two writ petitions are directed to the Municipal Council of Erode and seek the relief of obtaining cancellation of a licence issued to the second respondent in each of the petitions permitting the latter to work a powerloom in a building adjacent to the residential premises of the petitioner.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated to appreciate the points arising for decision. The second respondent, Palaniandavar Textiles, by proprietor, Muthuswami Gounder & Co., applied to the Erode Municipality in or about November, 1956, for the grant of a licence to enable him to install a 5 H.P. motor to work 5 power-looms in Premises No. 55, Muthuvelappa Gounder Street, Erode. This door No. 55 in exactly at the back of the petitioner's residential house, which bore No. 58, Borough Road, Erode. By a resolution of the Erode Municipal Council in its proceedings, dated 25b May, 1957, this body decided not to grant the permission on the ground that the same would...
Tag this Judgment!A. Rangaswamy Iyengar Vs. Pattammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad442; (1960)IIMLJ18
(1) The appeal is upon the short point whether, in execution of a maintenance decree in favour of a wife and a daughter, the husband and judgment-debtor (appellant here) can plead that his liability is extinguished by the fact that the charged properties were bought in by the wife for arrears of maintenance at a court sale in previous execution proceedings. the facts are not in dispute that there was such a court sale; and the learned counsel for the husband (appellant) contends that properties worth nearly Rs.30,000, were knocked away by the wife at the court sale for the inadequate consideration of Rs.10,000, which was then the aggregate of the maintenance arrears. But, I note the fact that this sale itself is sub judice in a litigation still pending in this court between the parties.(2) However, this might be, the simple position that has to be considered is, whether the husband can claim in such circumstances, that the wife holds the property purchased at the court sale subject to ...
Tag this Judgment!Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Buckingham and Carnatic M ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad106; (1959)IILLJ781Mad
(1) These two appeals are from the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. in disposing of two writ petitions, namely, W. P. Nos. 54 and 55 of 1959.* They both relate to an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 31-1-1959 in Industrial Dispute No. 69 of 1958 on the file of the Tribunal. The management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co., Ltd., filed both the petitions, In W. P. o. 54 of 1959 they prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of the Industrial Tribunal, while in W P. No. 55 of 1959 they prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the Industrial Tribunal to forbear from proceeding with the hearing in I. D. No. 69 of 1958 in pursuance of the said order. Both the petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge and these appeals are by the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Co., Ltd.(2) A question of far-reaching importance arises in these appeals on which there appears to be no direct authority. The question is this: If in an industrial establishment which...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugha Goundar Vs. Palaniappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ171
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The defendant agriculturist owed the plaintiff money on a promissory note. A suit on the promissory note would, but for Madras Act (I of 1955), be barred on the 29th June, 1955. Madras Act (I of 1955) which came into force on the 1st March, 1955, prohibited the institution of a suit for recovery of a debt from an agriculturist, during the months, March to June, 1955. That period of four months was excluded from the time prescribed by the Limitation Act for the institution of a suit for the recovery of the debt. The plaintiff had therefore to institute a suit against the defendant on 1st July, 1955, if no payments were made within that period of four months. The Act provides for payment of part of the debt within that period of four months and grants time, in the event of such payment, for payment of the balance of the debt in equal instalments. Section 3(2) of the Act enacts:Where a creditor files a suit for the recovery of a debt during the period of four months fro...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Commerce and Industries Co. Ltd., by Its Managing Director C. A ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ146
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an application by the Official Liquidator in the matter of the liquidation of the Free Press Journals (Madras) Limited.2. The Official Liquidator prays (a) that under the proviso to Section 467 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, this Court may dispense with the settlement of the list of contributories in this liquidation; and (b) that except the statutory books, the order books, records and files of the company be permitted to be disposed of and the proceeds credited to the company.3. Section 467 of the Companies Act is one of the most important sections of the said Act. This section corresponds to Section 184 of the previous Act and Section 257 of the English Act of 1948. As recommended by the Company Law Committee at page 317 of their report, the proviso to Section 257(1) of the English Act has been embodied in this section. This section deals with the list of contributories. A contributory has been defined in Section 428 of the Act, which corresponds to Secti...
Tag this Judgment!