Chennai Court September 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 5 of about 63 results (0.008 seconds)The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Ramanathapuram Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ170
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in O.S. No. 4 of 1954. The suit was filed by the Nemam Jayankonda Soleswarar temple represented by its trustees consequent on the action taken by the State of Madras under the Rent Reduction Act (XXX of 1947) and the Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of 1948) in respect of alleged whole inam village falling within the scope of the said two Acts. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the State had no jurisdiction to deal with the concerned inams as they were not 'estates' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The suit relates to what are described as the villages of Nemmeniendal, Chettiendal, Vettaikaranendal, Nallampillai, Pethanendal, Ugandavayal and Sirukudivayal. The only question which arose before the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga was whether these alleged villages were 'estates' within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. The learned Judge hel...
Tag this Judgment!The Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd. Vs. the B. and C. Mills' Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ516
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., 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 31st January, 1959, in Industrial Dispute No. 59 of 1958 on the file of the Tribunal. The management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Limited, filed both the petitions. In W.P. No. 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 Industrial Dispute 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 Company, Limited.2. A question of far-reaching importance arises in these appeals on which there appears to be no direct authority. The question is ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chellaperumal Chetty Vs. N.M. Jayarathnam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad314
(1) The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and decree of the Additional City Civil Judge Madras, in A. S. No. 29 of 1956 on his file. The learned Judge allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant from the judgment decree of the Sixth Assistant Judge on the file of that court in O. S. No. 1462 of 1953, and, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.(2) There was a public limited company known as the Conjeevaram Funds Ltd. The company was conducting chits. The defendant was subscribing to a chit conducted by the company in the years 1949-53. The chit commenced in April 1949. The defendant subscribed to five tickets in that chit. The amount payable per ticket per month was Rs. 30. The duration of the chit was forty months. The defendant paid the amount for the five tickets for five months. In September 1949 he purchased the chit and had to pay Rs. 5250 on account of the remaining 35 instalments of the chit. He had to pay Rs. 150 per instalment. The total sum payable by him was Rs. 5250...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Ramasami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad396
(1) This second appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 104 of 1955 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Satur in O. S. No. 272 of 1950.(2) The facts are short. The suit property belonged to the joint family of the second defendant and his son Kanga Arumugham Pillai. Sale deeds were got executed from the wastrel son Arumugham in favour of defendants 1 and 3 during the lifetime of the father falsely stating in the documents that the father is insane. It has been held that the sale deed executed by the father in favour of the Plaintiff is valid and therefore the half share of the father goes out of the picture. In regard to the rival sale deeds executed by the son in favour of defendants 1 and 3, the first defendant purchased the suit property under Ex. B-4 dated 17-6-1950, which was registered on 26th June 1950. D. Ws. 2, 3 and 7 spoke to the execution and ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Natesa Nattar Vs. J.G. Daniel (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad312
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This appeal against the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. arises out of a suit filed in the City Civil Court at Madras by the respondent. J. G. Deniel, for possession of a house. The suit house belonged originally to one Kuppuswami Nattar who executed a mortgage over the property in 1926 to secure a sum of Rs. 1,000 borrowed by him from one Angammal. Angammal assigned the mortgage in her favour to one Rajagopala Naidu who in turn assigned it to one Kuppuswami Naidu. Kuppuswami Naidu filed a suit on the mortgage against the minor son of Kuppuswami Nattar who had died and obtained a decree for sale.The final decree was assigned to the plaintiff in 1943 and he was brought on record as the transferee decree-holder. He therefore applied for sale of the house and purchased the house himself in court auction after obtaining leave to bid. After obtaining sale certificate when the plaintiff attempted to take possession of the suit property the defendant obstructed, urging ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R.M.S. Bus Service Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ507Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The management of the V.R.M.S. Bus Service, Tiruchengode, Salem district, is the petitioner and it seeks the quashing of an award of the labour court, Coimbatore. by which it directed the reinstatement with back wages Of a workman employed in this concern by name Rangarajan.2. Rangarajan is respondent 2 in this petition. He made an application to one Sundara Goundar who was a partner in the petitioner's concern for employment as an apprentice-driver. In this application, which has been marked as Ex. M. 1 in the case and which is dated 1 September 1956, Rangarajan stated that he might be employed in this concern for a period of eight months. The application, Ex. M. 1 also contained a clause by which the worker agreed to the management terminating his service at any time if they were not satisfied with him. The work-man entered on his duties on the same day as Ex. M. 1, that is, 1 September 1956. Some time thereafter on 16 February 1957, Sundara Goundar ser...
Tag this Judgment!S.A.M. Mahamed Ibrahim and anr. Vs. the Estates Abolition Tribunal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ347
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Estates Abolition Tribunal to entertain Appeal No. 136 of 1957 and dispose of it in accordance with law.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated to understand how a relief of this nature comes to be claimed. The village of Eripurakarai in Pattukottai taluk, Tanjore District, was notified as an inam estate and taken over by the Government under Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) on 1st October, 1951. The petitioners who are the ex-inamdars of this village filed an application on 23rd December, 1955, before the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Pattukottai, claiming ryotwari pattas under Section 13(a)(i) of the Act in respect of 8 items. The petitioners are two in number and it is stated that they were carrying on business in Ceylon while their family has been permanently residing in Adirampattinam near Pattukottai. The Assistant Settlement Officer took up the petitioner's application for e...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ananthayya Vs. B. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad188
1. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. They have two other brothers. The respondent is the eldest. The appellant is the youngest. Their father died in 1927. The appellant was then 10 or 11 years old. He was a student in the First Form in the School in their village in the South Kanara District. After the father's death, the respondent placed himself in the position of a father in relation to the appellant. The respondent got the appellant educated. The appellant passed the High School examination. He had been endowed by nature with intelligence of a high order. He was admitted into College and passed Intermediate in the first class. He then secured admission in the Engineering College at Guindy. The respondent was looking after all the pecuniary and other material needs and comforts of the appellant. Scholarship was secured for him from the Government. Contribution towards the expenses of education was secured also from the Madhwa Association. Some friends too helped. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Shankerlal Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad225; 1960CriLJ625
(1) The questions that arise for determination in both these petitions are the same and I shall therefore deal with them together.(2) On 23-9-1958, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras seized 500 packets of 7 o' clock blades from No. 47, Narayana Mudali St., George Town. Each packet contained 100 blades so that in all the total of number of blades seized was 50,000. On 29-9-1958 the Collector of Central Excise sent a notice to Shankarlal, the petitioner in W. P. No. 840 of 1958, which runs as follows:"Whereas there is reason to believe that the goods mentioned in the schedule below have been imported without payment of customs duty and import trade control licence in contravention of S. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3(2) of the Imports and Export Control Act. 1947 and you are liable to a penalty under S. 167(8) of the Sea customs Act.2. You are therefore called upon to show cause before the undersigned at Madras within ten days from the date hereof why a penalty should not...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ananthayya Vs. B. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ164
Subrahmanyam, J.1. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. They have two other brothers. The respondent is the eldest. The appellant is the youngest. Their father died in 1927. The appellant was then 10 or 11 years old. He was a student in the First Form in the School in their village in the South Kanara District. After the father's death, the respondent placed himself in the position of a father in relation to the appellant. The respondent got the appellant educated. The appellant passed the High School examination. He had been endowed by nature with intelligence of a high order. He was admitted into College and passed Intermediate in the first class. He then secured admission in the Engineering College at Guindy. The respondent was looking after all the pecuniary and other material needs and comforts of the appellant. Scholarship was secured for him from the Government. Contribution towards the expenses of education was secured also from the Madhwa Association. Some friends to...
Tag this Judgment!