Chennai Court October 1960 Judgments
Working Journalists of the hindu Madras Vs. Management of the hindu, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad370; (1961)ILLJ288Mad; (1961)1MLJ260
1. This appeal raises an important point of industrial law, namely, whether a Labour Court, to which a valid reference of an Industrial dispute for adjudication had been made, ceases to have jurisdiction to proceed to deal with it by reason of the fact that a majority of the workers, who had collectively sponsored the cause of a workman and raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety of the termination of his services, had subsequently, and pending adjudication of that dispute, retracted and withdrawn their supportThe Labour court, by its preliminary award dated 25th April 1958, answered the question in the negative. On a petition filed by the management under Article 226 of the Constitution, Balakrishna Aiyar, J. by his order dated 7th April 1959, took a contrary view holding that the dispute referred to the Labour Court lost its character as an industrial dispute and was no longer such, and, therefore, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed further in the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Narayanan and anr. Vs. S.R. Narayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad254
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the court below who are the editor and the proprietor-printer respectively of a monthly Tamil journal published at Coonoor. They were sued by the plaintiff (S. R, Narayana Aiyar) for damages to the tune of Rs. 5500 in respect of a defamatory statement or libel made against the plaintiff by the first defendant (the editor) in the issue of the periodical, largely devoted to the interests of plantation labour, dated 15-1-1955.The learned Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris tried the action upon the merits, and came to conclusion that the imputations, were per sc so defamatory, that they were not entitled to protection as within the bounds of fair comment, nor of privilege, and that the plaintiff was hence entitled to damages. Damages to the tune of Rs. 1000 were awarded against both defendants with costs. The appeal is from these findings.2. The Tamil text of the article containing the libel is reproduced in paragraph 6 of the jud...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Simpson and Mc Conechy Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad210; (1961)1MLJ83
1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act in respect of a document which was the subject-matter of an earlier reference to this Court (R. C. No. 23 of 1957), The question then referred for decision was whether the document was to be classified as a lease or a mortgage with possession. This Court was of the opinion that the document was not a mortgage with possession, but a lease, and that it also contained a separate agreement for subrogation. The learned Government Pleader then tried to raise the question as to the proper duty leviable on the document on the footing that it was a lease. We refused to answer that question then because that was not the subject-matter of the reference. Now, the Board of Revenue, as the Chief Controlling Authority, have made a reference of the question as to what is the stamp duty chargeable for the document.2. The point for determination is whether the document would fall within Article 30(c) of Sch. I-A of the Act, that is, the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the Tiruchi-srirangam Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad307; [1961(2)FLR465]; (1961)ILLJ729Mad; (1961)1MLJ228
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call for the records in claim petition No. 227 of 1958 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai, and to quash the order dated 19-11-1958, The second respondent to this petition, Iswaran, was employed as a Traffic Supervisor in the Tiruchi-Srirangam Transport Co. (Private) Ltd. the petitioner. His services were terminated on 21-12-1956 under a scheme of retrenchment. Subsequent thereto, there were disputes between the management and the other workers in regard to the payment of bonus for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57. A settlement was readied before the Conciliation Officer on 29-4-1958. In pursuance of such settlement, the management declared an additional bonus of one month's wages for each worker for each of the two years.2. Iswaran was however not paid anything by way of bonus though he had worked during those years presumably because he was not in service on the date of the dispute which ended...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.S. Muhammad Sultan Rowther and Co., Registered Firm by Its Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad388; (1961)1MLJ288
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the judgment of the Fourth Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in S. C. S. No. 2378 of 1957. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of the petition are the following.2. The plaintiff is a wholesale dealer who has been supplying goods from time to time on credit to the defendant, a retail dealer. The plaintiff kept a running account in a ledger for these transactions. The defendant paid amounts towards these purchases from time to time and the payments made by him were adjusted in the plaintiff's ledger towards the value of the goods supplied. According to the plaint, the balance of the amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff on 22-7-1957 was Rs. 59-3-9. This amount together with a small amount for interest represented the suit claim of Rs. 60. The suit was filed on 4-12-1957. The defendant in his written statement made specific attacks on the acc...
Tag this Judgment!The Ellerman and Bucknall Steamship Co. Ltd. Vs. Sha Bhagajee Sonmull ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad442; (1961)2MLJ97
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These appeals raise a question as to the liability of a shipowner for non-disclosure in the bill of lading of a fact relating to the condition of the packages received by him for carriage by sea. The Ellarman and Bucknall Steamship Co. Ltd., whose local agents are Messrs. Best and Co., Ltd., are the appellants in the two appeals, which arise out of the decree in two actions, O. S. Nos. 1135 and 1144 of 1935 (commenced on the original side of this court but later transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras).The suits were instituted by the first respondent in each of the appeals for recovery of Rs. 26061-4-9 and Rs. 23248 respectively from the Mercantile Bank of India (the second respondent) and the appellant. They were tried with a similar suit, O. S. No. 1134 of 1955, and a common judgment was delivered. The first respondent in C. C. C. A. No. 52 of 1957 entered into two contracts respectively, dated 12-12-1950 and 19-1-1931, with the British Mercantile Co., New...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Lebbai Vs. Papathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad403; (1961)1MLJ235
Veeraswami, J. 1. This second appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge Tanjore, in A. S. No. 116 of 1957, which confirmed the decree of the trial court. The suit out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by the first respondent for a declaration that the suit property belonged to her and that it was not liable to be attached in execution of the decree in S. C. S. No. 934 of 1952 which the appellant had obtained against the second respondent. She claimed [hat she had purchased the suit property from the second respondent under a sale deed dated 23-9-1955. On 17-10-1955 in E. P. No. 392 of 1955 the appellant attached the suit property and the first respondent's claim in E. A. No. 708 of 1955 on the strength of the sale deed in her favour was rejected by the trial court. If is that order which the first respondent sought to set aside in the suit.2. The appellant's case was that the sale aforesaid executed in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1960
Reported in: [1961]43ITR358(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question raised in this reference relates to the assessability of the income of the Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd., for the assessment year 1946-47 to 1953-54. It is desirable at the outset to set out the previous history of the income-tax proceedings relating to this case. As long back as in 1917-18 an assessment was made. But only the income from non-members of the fund by way of interest on Government securities and bank deposits and income from property were subjected to tax. In doing so, reliance was apparently placed on the ruling of our High Court given in Secretary, Board of Revenue, (Income-tax) v. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. Several years later, the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Madura Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd., was decided by the High Court. Certain observations were made by the learned judges which appeared to suggest that the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund case did not attract the principle laid down in New York Insurance Co. v. Style...
Tag this Judgment!Thayyan Padayachi and anr. Vs. Veluswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad407; (1961)1MLJ142
1. Certain properties concerned in a partition suit O. S. No. 210 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem were directed to he sold so that the proceeds thereof could be distributed in adjustment of the shares of the parties entitled to partition. Apparently these properties were not capable of division in any other manner. The sale was accordingly held on 9th October 1959 and the successful auction purchaser was a third party; the properties were knocked down in his favour for Rs. 16000. As required by Order 21, Rule 84, the auction purchaser deposited 25 per cent, of the amount of the purchase money. Rule 85 requires further that the full amount of the purchase money has to he deposited before the court closes on the fifteenth day from the date of sale of the property. Such a deposit was not made. An application was put in by the auction purchaser on 21-10-1959 seeking for extension of time by one month from making the deposit of the balance. Though this application was ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthupalaniapa Chettiar Vs. Alagamai Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad438
1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, in O. S. No. 34 of 1953, which was instituted by Muthupalaniappa Chettiar. The contesting defendants were defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant, Alagamai Achi, is the daughter of the second defendant by one Vallaiammai Achi. The third defendant is the authorised agent of the second defendant in charge ot his affairs in Malacca (Malaya). The plaintiff was carrying on a money lending business in Malacca under the name and style of RM. M. PL,The suit was for a declaration that the amount of 6267 dollars 83 cents invested with the plaintiff's firm of RM, M. PL. of Malacca in the name of Vallaiammai Achi, the wife of the second defendant, had been paid and discharged under the receipt, dateQ 28-8-1943, granted by one Muthupalaniappa Chettiar, the first defendant's authorised agent, and the said discharge is binding on all the defendants, and for a decree, directing the second defendant to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »