Chennai Court September 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 6 of about 63 results (0.025 seconds)Janakiammal (Deceased by L.R. Ramaswami Goundar (Died) by Widow Rajamm ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad324
(1) This revision petition is preferred by the seventh respondent in E. P. No. 134 of 1957 in O. S. No. 226 of 1946, on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. That petition was filed by the defendants in O. S. No. 226 of 1946 under the following circumstances. O. S. No. 226 of 1946 was laid against the defendants by the two persons for recovery of a sum of more than one lakh of rupees. They got a decree in the first Court not for the full sum claimed, but, for a part of it. Against the decree, an appeal was preferred to this Court, being A. S. No. 713 of 1947. That appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtors defendants objecting to the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.The plaintiffs in the lower court also preferred an appeal to this Court objecting to the disallowance of a portion of the claim. Pending the appeal, an order for stay was obtained in this Court on condition that the amount of the decree should be deposited in the trial court...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ616
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellant, Ramachandran, has been convicted of the murder of a woman named Pappal, ands also of causing disappearance of the evidence of offence (Ss. 302 IPC and 201 I. P. C), and-sentenced to death for the offence of murder. The learned Sessions Judge of Tanjore, who tried the ease, has not imposed a separate sentence Under Section 201 IPC as he considered that, that was: not required or desirable, following the Bench decision of this Court in Ramagounden, In re. : AIR1942Mad275 .2. The appellant and Pappal, deceased, were related, being cousins and the appellant is a young-man of about 22, while the woman definitely older. The two were in illicit intimacy, which was also-a prohibited relationship, amounting to incest. Pappal was married and had two _ children, but she had left her husband, and was living with her mother, P, W. 1, in a house, the rear portion of which was occupied by the accused. We have very considerable evidence regarding the illicit intima...
Tag this Judgment!Janakiammal (Deceased) by L.R. Ramaswami Gounder (Died) by Widow Rajam ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ148
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This revision petition is preferred by the seventh respondent in E.P. No. 134 of 1957 in O.S. No. 226 of 1946 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. That petition was filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 226 of 1946 under the following circumstances. O.S. No. 226 of 1946 was laid against two defendants by the two persons for recovery of a sum of more than one lakh of rupees. They got a decree in the first Court not for the full sum claimed, but, for a part of it. Against that decree, an appeal was preferred to this Court, being A.S. No. 713 of 1947. That appeal was preferred by the judgment-debtors - defendants objecting to the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The plaintiffs in the lower Court also preferred an appeal to this Court objecting to the disallowance of a portion of the plaint claim. Pending the appeal, an order for stay was obtained in this Court on condition that the amount of the decree should be depo...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tanjore Vs. Kamaks ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ276
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in A.S. No. 161 of 1956, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tanjore in O.S. No. 158 of 1955.2. In Kulamangalarn village, which formed part of an estate, there is a poromboke tank in which the ryots of Kulamangalam village have for over a long time been enjoying the right to fish. This village was notified and taken over on 9th December, 1952 under the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The ryots were prevented from exercising their right to fish in this poromboke tank. Thereupon they filed the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, claiming in the first instance the tank as well as a customary right to fish therein and prayed for a declaration and injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession. It is not necessary to discuss about the tank situate in S. No. 48/1, because the claim of the plaintiffs has subsequently been c...
Tag this Judgment!Thalai Vadivu Anandar Vs. Venugopala Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ356
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This Appeal against the Judgment of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in C.M.S.A. No. 130 of 1954 arises in the following circumstances. One Marudappa Chettiar filed O.S. No. 675 of 1952 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, against Venugopala Chettiar, the respondent herein, for recovery of possession of the property in dispute and for past and future rents. In that suit the parties entered into a compromise and based on that compromise the Court passed a decree directing the respondent herein to deliver possession of the property by 15th March, 1954 and also to pay past and future rents. As the respondent failed to deliver possession by the prescribed date, the plaintiff-decree-holder filed E.P. No. 240 of 1954 on 18th March, 1954, for delivery of possession. An order for delivery was passed on 12th April, 1954, directing delivery by 10th Jnne, 1954. On 15th April, 1954, the respondent filed an appeal to the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, against the ord...
Tag this Judgment!P.A.S. Press, Madras Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad194; [1961(2)FLR548]; (1960)ILLJ792Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. W. P. No. 142/58: The management is the petitioner in this petition which arises out of an award of an Industrial Tribunal. The petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour court, Madras, D/- 3-2-1958, by which the gratuity has been directed to be paid to the respondent 2, Mr. G.V.N. Rao. The establishment in question is one which goes by the name of P. A. S. Press in Komaleswaranpet, Madras. By an industrial award which had been passed as the result of a settlement between the management and their workers, the workmen in this concern became entitled to gratuity on resignation or discharge. Subsequent to this consent award, G.V.N. Rao, the 2nd respondent, who was designated the manager of this Press, tendered his resignation on 10th July 1957, and this was accepted and he was relieved from office on 31st July 1957. On resignation he made a demand for the payment of gratuity in terms of this award. This was refused and...
Tag this Judgment!Three Lotus Beedi Factory Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ504Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the management of a proprietary concern (that of the father and the sons) known as the Three Lotus Beedi Factory, Salem. In these two petitions it seeks the quashing by the issue of writs of certiorari of the two orders of the labour court, Coimbatore, by which the dismissal of two of its workmen was set aside and reinstatement ordered.2. Writ Petition No. 966 of 1957 is concerned with the termination of the service of a maistry by name Abdul Sukur. The dismissal of this workman took place on 23 April 1957. The union raised an industrial dispute in relation to it which was referred by Government to the labour court, Coimbatore, in G.O. Ms. No. 2391, dated 18 July 1957. In answer to the claim of the union challenging the validity of the order by which the services of this maistry were dispensed with, the management, while admitting that there was no charge laid against the worker that no notice was given to him a...
Tag this Judgment!Panchapakesa Iyer Vs. Subramania Moopan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ349
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The order impugned in this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari is that of the Revenue Court which directed restoration to possession under Section 4 of the Madras Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955 (Act XXV of 1955). The first respondent alleged that he had been cultivating the land of an extent of 2 acres and 42 cents in the village of Allur, Tiruchirappalli taluk.2. The petitioner is the owner of the land now in controversy. The first respondent, Subramaniam, was in possession of this land as a cultivating tenant on 1st December, 1953. He filed an application out of which the present proceedings arise, R.A. No. 81 of 1956, in the Revenue Court, Tiruchirappalli, for restoration to possession of his holding under Section 4(1) of the Madras Act (XXV of 1955). The petitioner resisted this application but the same was allowed by the Revenue Court and it is the validity of this order that is challenged in this petition. A few facts are ...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Menon and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Varadachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad359; (1960)IIMLJ81
(1) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree by Ramaswami J. in a suit instituted on the original side of this Court, C. S. No. 72 of 1950. The suit was for the recovery of the amount due under four mortgages which were executed by one Dhanakoti Ammal in favour of the plaintiff, Sreenivasa Varadachariar, on 20-3-1936, 14-9-1936, 27-7-1937 and 2-1-1938, for sums of Rs. 25,000, Rs. 9,000, Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 7,000 respectively. The terms relating to the interest were the same in respect of each of these four mortgages, viz., Rs. 15 p.c. per annum compound with quarterly rests. A favourable rate of interest at 12 p.c. per annum was however provided in case of payment of interest due for each month by the 20th day of succeeding month.Dhanakoti Ammal was adjudged insolvent and her estate vested in the Official Assignee, Madras. The Official Assignee sold the four items mentioned in the plaint schedule comprised in the four mortgages to Dr. Gopala Menon on 6-7-1944. The sale was subject...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Madras Vs. the Commissioner of Labour, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad288; (1959)IILLJ771Mad
ORDER(1) In February 1951, Prem Sagar, the second respondent, was holding a gazetted appointment with the Government of India as an Assistant Engineer. On 5-2-1951, he entered the service of the Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Madras, as a temporary Roads Engineer on a salary of Rs. 350. On 1-6-1952 he was promoted as Operating Engineer on a salary of Rs. 450 per month. In 1956 the designation of the post which he held was changed from Operating Engineer to Operations Assistant. But that did not affect him in any way. By the end of February, 1958 he was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month.(2) In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions it is alleged that for sometime prior to August 1957, the work of the second respondent was unsatisfactory.'He was un-co-operative, malingering and generally his productive capacity was below standard. This was made known to him, in August 1957 and he was advised that improvement was necessary. In September 1957, his work was again reviewed and sti...
Tag this Judgment!