Chennai Court November 1960 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the General Manager, Park Town, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad486; [1961(3)FLR35]; (1961)ILLJ615Mad; (1961)2MLJ273
1. This is an appeal by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras against the judgment and decree in order Section 10 of 1956 on the file of the court of the Subordinate. Judge, Tiruchirappalli, whereby the Union of India, the defendant in the suit, was directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 11,115 with interest thereon at 6 per cent from 18-1-1954, the date of the plaint together with costs amounting to Rs. 1799-4-0.2. R. Akbar Sheriff, the plaintiff in the suit, presented the plaint on 18-1-1954 on the original side of this court and it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras on 22-7-1955, for trial. Before the City Civil Court, the Union of India, the defendant in the suit, raised a preliminary issue that that court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. By order dated 12-10-1955 the city civil court held that it had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court, The plaintiff received the plaint by reg...
Tag this Judgment!Apparswami Chettiar Vs. Sri Parvathavardhani Sametha Ramanatheeswara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad527
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a revision petition at the instance of the defendant in O. S. No. 297 of 1958 against an order directing payment of court-fee in regard to a claim for improvements made in the following circumstances. The respondent filed a suit for a declaration of its title to the suit property, for possession & recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner, in addition to contesting the title of the respondent, pleaded that he had effected improvements to the property to an extent of Rs. 1500/- and before a decree for possession could be passed, he should be compensated to the extent of that amount. The lower court has held that the petitioner should pay court-fee on than amount. It is plain that the claim of the defendant to be paid the cost of the improvement as a condition of the decree for possession is neither a claim for set-off nor one by way of counter claim. Mr. Ramanujam, who appeared for the Government Pleader, sought to contend that the claim would come wi...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi Ammal Vs. P.S. Muthukrishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad380; (1961)1MLJ94
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ganapatia Piliai J. in S. A. No. 16 of 1956. It arises out of a suit filed by the appellant before us -- O.S. No. 63 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore--for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit properties and for past and future mesne profits. The appellant, who will be referred hereafter as the plaintiff, is the wife of the respondent-first defendant. She filed a suit--O.S. No. 137 of 1950 in the same court for separate maintenance. Though the suit was originally contested by the first defendant, when the suit was taken up for trial, ho agreed that the plaintiff would be entitled to claim separate maintenance, but left for the decision of the Court the rate of maintenance and the properties, which are to be charged, for recovery of the maintenance. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the rate of maintenance at Rs. 150 per month and also directed that the maintenance may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Proprietor, Murugan Transports, Cuddalore Vs. P. Rathakrishnan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad310; (1961)ILLJ283Mad
1. The employer of Murugan Transports, Cuddalore, has filed this petition challenging the order of the Authority appointed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act (Central Act XI of 1948) directing payment of Rs. 693 and Rs. 422 respectively to respondents 1 and 2 who were employed in the transport service conducted by the former. Rathakrishnan and Chinnathambi were taken from July 1954 and November 1955 as cleaner and learner apprentices by the employer.Their services were terminated in July 1957. On 19-7-1958, respondents 1 and 2 along with one other employee applied to the authority appointed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Art for payment of certain sums of money as representing the difference between the minimum wages payable under the notification of the Government contained in G. O. Ms. 1247 (Industries, Labour and Co-operation) dated 30-3-1957, and the actual wages paid to them.2. The employer contested the claim on three grounds, namely, (1) that a petition under...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Films (Private) Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC274(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. Among the trading activities of the assessee firm was the sale of cinema machinery and apparatus; some of its sales were effected under long term hire-purchase agreements. In the assessment year 1955-56 the assessee claimed that under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules it was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 68,275 from its gross sales turnover. That claim was disallowed by the department, and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance.2. Rs. 68,275 was the total amount due from four purchasers for the machinery sold to them by the assessee under hire-purchase agreements. These sales were in 1949, 1950 and 1951. The aggregate amount due under each of those agreements was taken into account in computing the taxable turnover of the assessee in the year of the transaction. The transactions being in form of hire-purchase agreements, the sale price was payable in instalments. The agreements provided that, in default of payment of the instalments due, the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Dhandapani Power-loom Factory Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: [1961]12STC304(Mad)
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J. 1. The petitioner owns a factory at Erode wherein cloth is manufactured with the aid of nine power-looms. Originally cloth manufactured on power-looms and sold by a dealer was liable to sales tax at the general rate fixed in Section 3(1 )(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. Act XX of 1954, which came into effect from 23rd August, 1954, imposed an additional Tax of Re. 0-1-3 on every rupee of the turnover on certain varieties of cloth, namely 'cloth, whether of silk, artificial silk, wool, flax, or any other material not being cotton, made in mills, in which the count of warp yarn employed (excluding the border) is 17s or finer (whether single or folded).' It will be noticed that the additional tax levied under the provisions of the Amending Act XX of 1954 was in respect of mill products where the warp yarn employed was above 17s or finer. Cloths manufactured by power-looms are not specifically mentioned in the section. Prima facie they appear to have...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ825
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are appeals preferred by the State against the acquittals of the respondent in two related cases, in which the facts are identical, but the periods of time concerned are different. In both these cases, the Inspector of Provident Funds, Coimbatore, prosecuted Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd., Coimbatore (first accused) and the present respondent, the General Manager of the mills, the second accused, for an alleged offence under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 19 of 1952, read with paragraph 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.What has subsequently happened is that the prosecution was withdrawn as against the first accused (Messrs. Kaleeswarar Mills Ltd.), and it survived only as against the respondent. After proceeding into the facts in great detail, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the respondent was saved by virtue of the proviso to Section 14-A of the Act, which is in the following terms:P...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Somasundaram Chettiar (P.S.S.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ281Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. These are appeals preferred by the State against the acquittals of the respondent in two related cases, in which the facts are identical, but the periods of time concerned are different. In both these cases, the Inspector of Provident Funds, Coimbatore, prosecuted Kaleeswarar Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore (accused 1), and the present respondent, the general manager of the mills, the accused 2, for an alleged offence under Section 14(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act 19 of 1952, read with Para. 76 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. What has subsequently happened is that the prosecution was withdrawn as against the accused 1 (Kaleeswarar Mills, Ltd)., and it survived only as against the respondent. After proceeding into the facts in great detail, the learned Additional First Class Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the respondent was saved by virtue of the proviso to Section 14A of the Act, which is in the following terms:Provided that nothing contained...
Tag this Judgment!D.K.R. Chinnaswamy Sah Vs. Rajamba Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad325; (1961)1MLJ381
Srinivasan, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued for a declaration that the respondent is not his wife & for a permanent injunction restraining her from calling herself the plaintiff's wife arid taking or confirming any proceedings against the plaintiff in that capacity. The case was that the plaintiff married the respondent in 1953, though his first wife was then, and is still, alive. Apparently, some disputes arose between the two subsequently, and, the respondent filed an application in the Magistrate's court under Section 488 Cri. P. O. This seems to be the reason for the plaintiff's filing the suit for the declaration and injunction.2. Before the trial court, it was alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that there was no valid marriage by reason of the absence of the requisite religious ceremonies; but that has been found against by both the trial court and the lower appellate court. The position accordingly is that, while no doubt a proper form of marriage was gone through between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hirudayasami Udayar Vs. Ramaswami Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1960
Reported in: 1961CriLJ246
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision involves an interesting : point whether interference by this Courtwill be justified, where a learned Magistrate holding a preliminary enquiry into an alleged offence under Section 395 I. P. C has come to the conclusion that no such offence triable exclusively by a court of session was involved, and has hence framed charges under Sections 379 and 447 I.P.C. and is himself proceeding to further dispose of the case according to law.Undoubtedly the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is justified as a matter of strict form, and it is sufficient to refer to Section 207-A(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code Amended Code, which permits such a procedure. But the more difficult question is whether, assuming that there is more material to show that two views are possible upon the question of the applicability of Section 392 I.P.C. or 395 I.P.C. to the facts, this Courtought to interfere in what is really a discharge by implication.2. My attention ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »