Chennai Court January 1960 Judgments
Special Tehsildar, Vs. Susai Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad479; (1960)2MLJ217
ORDER(1) In a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in the matter of awards of compensation for the acquisition of certain lands in Velayudanpattu village in the South Arcot District, the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore set aside the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and remitted the matter for passing a revised award. This the learned Subordinate Judge did as he found that the basis of the valuation adopted by the officer was under Act XI of 1953, which has since been declared to be unconstitutional. The State has preferred the appeals against the order of remittal on the ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the awards and remit the same for passing revised awards. The office of the Registrar has taken objection to the maintainability of the appeals and has referred the matter to Court.(2) Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act under which the appeals are sought to be filed allows an appeal in any proceedings under the Act to the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Industries Ltd. Vs. Sundara Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ303Mad
ORDERRamachandra Ayyar, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records in Petition No. 2 of 1958 in Industrial Dispute No. 62 of 1967 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and to quash the order dated 7 July 1958 in the said petition.2. There was an industrial dispute, Industrial Dispute No. 62 of 1957, pending between the petitioner and its workers. The award in that dispute was passed on 13 March 1958 and was published on 2 April 1958 and by 2 May 1958 the tribunal had become functus officio. In the meanwhile the petitioner had to take disciplinary action against one of its workmen, respondent 1 to this petition. It therefore started proceedings and on 2 February 1958 it dismissed him from service for misconduct. The order was to come into operation from 4 February 1958. Thereupon, the petitioner applied to the industrial tribunal for approval of its action under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Firm of M. Ghakravarthi Iyengar and ors. Vs. the Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ207
ORDER1. The question referred for decision in the two appeals is whether the Court-fee paid on them is correct.2. The Court-fee that was paid on the appeals was in accordance with the provisions of the Court-fees Act of 1870 which for the sake of brevity I shall hereafter refer to as the Old Court-fees Act. It is contended on behalf of the State that the Court-fee has got to be calculated on the basis of the Court-fees Act (XIV of 1955) which came into force on 19th May, 1955. I shall refer to that Act as the New Court-fees Act. The appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming a higher compensation for certain lands acquired in Tondiarpet under the Town Planning Act. In respect of the lands so acquired the Land Acquisition Officer published a notification on 14th May, 1955, under Section 9. Claims were filed by the appellants on 7th June, 1955, stating that they were entitled to a particular amount of compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the awar...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Konar Vs. Venkatachala Konar Alias Govinda Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ67
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the execution of a decree in SC.No. 1133 of 1951 on the Me of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, and involves for decision a plea of limitation.2. The petitioner before me obtained a decree in S.C. No. 1133 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli, on 19th October, 1951. He filed an execution petition which however terminated by a final order, dated 6th July, 1952. The next execution petition filed by him is dated Ist October, 1958. Obviously this execution petition being beyond three years from 6th July, 1952, is barred by limitation but the decree-holder contended in the Court below that the defendant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Madras Art I of 1955 and that the decree amount became payable in instalments as provided for under Section 4 of the said Act. He conceded that in respect of the first and second instalments due as per the provisions of the statute the execution petition was barred by lim...
Tag this Judgment!R. Dorai Babu Chetti and anr. Vs. T. Gopalakrishna Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad501
(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ramaswami Gounder J. granting a preliminary decree for partition in C. S. No. 608 of 1949. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The appeal involves the determination of the question whether a legitimate son of a deceased Hindu belonging to the Sudra class who obtained certain properties on partition from his father's collaterals would be bound to share it with his illegitimate half brother. One Tirumalai Chetti and his brothers formed members of a joint Hindu family. One of the brothers, Chinnappa Chetti died issueless in 1931. Raghava Chetti, the son of Tirumalai Chetti, pre-deceased his father, leaving behind him his widow, Kamakshi Ammal and a son, Dorai Babu.During his lifetime, Tirumalai kept a concubine, Janaki, through whom he had an illegitimate son, Gopalakrishna Chetti. Tirumalai died in 1944, undivided from his brothers. He was survived by his widow, Mylai Ammal, daughter-in-law, Kamakshi, and his grandson, Dorai Babu. B...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer Vs. the Gle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ211
Rajagopalan, J.1. In this application preferred by the State under Section 54 (I) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act (Vof 1955) two questions arise for determination : (I) Was the Tribunal right in allowing the bonus paid to the Assistant Superintendent employed by the assessee as a permissible deduction under Section 5 (e) of the Act; and (2) Was the Tribunal right in allowing the whole of the depreciation claimed by the assessee with reference to one item of machinery, referred to as the pulper.2. The first of these questions we have to answer against the petitioner and in favour of the assessee in view of our decision in T.C. No. 32 of 1957, etc., in which we have just delivered judgment. The payment of bonus was not to a 'worker' as defined by Central Act LXIX of 1951 and so fell outside the scope of Section 5(1). As it was, however, a payment made to an employee, and as it satisfied the test of Section 5 (e), that it was an expenditure wholly and exclusively lai...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Commissioner of Agricultural I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ499
Rajagopalan, J.1. Since an identical question of law arises for determination in each of these applications, preferred by the State under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act (V of 1955), to which we shall refer in the rest of this judgment as the Act, we shall dispose of the applications by a single judgment. In each of these cases the assessee claimed that the sum he paid his employee--in some cases that employee was designated the manager and in others as superintendent--as bonus in the relevant year of account was a permissible deduction under Section 5 (e) of the Act. That claim was upheld by the Tribunal, and the correctness of that decision was challenged by the Department. The main contention of the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the petitioner, Department, was that Section 5(1) of the Act was the only statutory provision under which the assessee was entitled to deduction of payments of bonus, and, as admittedly the claim of the assessee in each of these cases did ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Glenburn Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1960
Reported in: [1962]44ITR643(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - In this application preferred by the State under section 54 (1) of the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act (V of 1955), two questions arise for determination : (1) was the Tribunal right in allowing the bonus paid to the Assistant Superintendent employed by the assessee as a permissible deduction under section 5 (e) of the Act; and (2) was the Tribunal right in allowing the whole of the depreciation claimed by the assessee with reference to one item of machinery, referred to as the pulper The first of these questions we have to answer against the petitioner and in favour of the assessee in view of our decision in T. C. No. 32 of 1957, etc., in which we have just delivered judgment. The payment of bonus was not to a 'worker' as defined by Central Act LXIX of 1951, and so fell outside the scope of section 5 (1). As it was however a payment it was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of land or plantation, the Tribunal was right in all...
Tag this Judgment!Chelladorai Alias Tiruvarasu Pandian (Minor) and ors. Vs. Varagunarama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad42; (1960)2MLJ219
1. These appeals under Section 51 of Act XXVI of 1948 are directed against the orders of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Madurai in O. P. Nos. 167 and 170 of 1951, rejecting the claim of the respective appellants for a share in the compensation amount. Sivagiri in the Tirunveli District was an ancient impartible estate; and it was also included in the schedule to the Madras Impartible Estates Act (II of 1904). On the passing of the Madras Abolition of Zamindari and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (XXVI of 1948), which hereafter shall be refer-red to as the Act, the Sivagiri estate was taken over by the Government as and from 3-1-1951, the date of the notification. An advance compensation of Rs. 2,40,000 was deposited by the Government with the Chairman of the Estates Abolition Tribunal.2. Senthattikalai Pandian Chinnathambiar, the previous Zamindar of Sivagiri Estate, died in 1934, leaving him surviving 7 sons, born of lawful wedlock and one Chinnadurai alias Ramchandran, the appellant in...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Subramania Iyer and anr. Vs. Minor Sangili Veerappa Balasubramani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ102
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. After taking over the Sivagiri Estate (which was an impartible estate) under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948, the Government deposited a sum of Rs. 7,899 as an interim payment for fasli 1365. The deposit was made on 16th March, 1957. At the time when estate was taken over, that is, on 3rd January, 1951, the principal landholder, namely, the Zamindar was 'one Varaguna Pandian. The right to the compensation amount will be governed by Section 45 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948). Under that section the compensation amount is first to be paid to the creditors of the impartible estate; of the balance, not exceeding 1 /5th is to be allotted to the maintenance holders, the remainder being divided amongst the sharers, as if they owned such amount as members of a joint Hindu family. The sharers would be (as defined in Section 45(3) of the Act) the Zamindar, his legitimate sons, grandsons and great grandsons in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »