Chennai Court February 1960 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bhagwandas Goenka Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad47; 1961CriLJ273; (1960)IIMLJ458
1 . These are two connected appeals instituted by Bhagwandas Goenka, against the convictions and sentences of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in C. C. Nos. 6910 and 6911 of 1956, convicting this appellant under Section 4(3) read with Section 23, and Sections 4(1) and 9 read with Notification No. 12(13) F-1/47 dated 25-3-1947 and Section 23 respectively of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- upon each charge. The cases were tried and dealt with by the learned Magistrate separately, but, as a matter of fact, the transactions are inter-related and have to be viewed as a whole. They mainly occurred within the period 26-7-1951 and 14-9-1951, when the, appellant visited the United States along with his wife Saroj Goenka, who was a co-accused in the lower Court in C. C. No. 6911 of 1956, but was discharged. Before proceeding into the facts, it will be convenient to set out the charges, and also to scrutinise, in this context itsel...
A. Marcalline Fernando Vs. St. Francis Xavior Church, Kottah by Presen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad31; (1960)2MLJ349
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Nagarcoil in I. A. No. 2654 of 1958 in D. S. No. 275 of 1958, issuing a commissioner for the examination of the Bishop of Kottar. The lower Court has held that such examination is authorised Under the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 read with Section 183 C. P. C. It is, however, not the case of the respondent (the petitioner in the lower court) that the Bishop of Kottar is either exempted under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 from attending court or is unable to attend court, by reason of any sickness or infirmity. The only ground urged is that he is a person in exalted position, being a spiritual head and dignitary of the church, and as such, should not be compelled to appear in court. The learned District Munsif, who accepted the contention, observed thus:'The only ground in favour of the respondent is his allegation in his order that truth can be found only if the person sought to be examined i...
Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd. Vs. V.S. Balasubbaraya Chettiar and Son
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad186; (1960)2MLJ372
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J. setting aside an award made on the 25th November 1952 in the following circumstances. On 30th January, 1952, the respondents, a registered firm of yam merchants carrying on business at Madras, agreed to buy from the appellant, Messrs. Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd., a company carrying on business at Madras ten bales of cotton yarn in hanks (2 crores) (XX) reels 1/80s combed Egyptian Warp Twist manufactured in Italy 5lb. bundles, 50 bundles per bale at 187 per lb. C. I. F, Madras in two lots of five bales each. By another contract, the respondents agreed to buy seven more bales of the same kind of yarn at 180 d. per lb. C. I. F.On intimation received by the respondents that the said seventeen bales were due to arrive they paid for the drafts and obtained the respective bills of lading, took delivery on the 14th April, 1952 of the five bales on the 8th May, 1952, another five bales and on the 12th May 1952 the...
G.A. Ayyadorai Pillai Vs. E.H.B. David
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad519
(1) This is an appeal instituted by the respondent in the court below in an application by a father (Sri E. H. B. David) for the restoration to custody of his little daughter, now aged nearly 4 years, under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge of Coimbatore on the merits, and the respondent below, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner in the lower court and the grandmother of the child, now appeals.(2) At the outset itself I think it is important to stress the principles upon which the court should approach amateur of this kind. It has been repeatedly laid down, that in such proceedings, the welfare of the minor should be the predominating interest. The law no doubt permits a person to have the custody of his minor child, and the right in law is really one which flows from certain universal feelings in nature and the common organisation of society all the world over. But that right is not an absolute right. It i...
Silver Cloud Estate Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ571Mad
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. During the time when an industrial dispute (Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1954) was pending before the Special Industrial Tribunal for Plantations (Labour Court, Coimbatore), the management of Silver Cloud Estate, Gudalur, found a necessity to effect a retrenchment of certain number of workers. It is not disputed that the workmen affected by the retrenchment were not directly concerned in the industrial dispute. Nor was the retrenchment otherwise than bona fide. The management, however, sought to obtain previous sanction of the labour court for effecting retrenchment in Petition No. 113 of 1957. It is said that the application was withdrawn, on a view expressed by the labour court during the course of hearing that the proper procedure for the management was to effect, the retrenchment first and then seek approval of the Court under Section 33(2) of the Act. The retrenchment was then effected in purported conformity with the rules and compensation paid to the worke...
S.U.S. Davey Sons Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ485Mad; (1960)IIMLJ254
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner-firm carried on business as opticians. The respondent 2 was an employee of the petitioner and was employed as a grinder. The respondent 2 was charged on 16 February 1959 with having refused to carry out an item of work assigned to him, which was one of his legitimate duties as a grinder. In response to the notice served upon the respondent 2, he furnished his explanation on 17 February 1959 denying the charges. The management held an enquiry on 20 February 1969 and on 21 February 1959. The management held that the charges had been proved and terminated the services of the respondent 2. Thus, in effect, it was a case of dismissal for misconduct, misconduct established in an enquiry in which the respondent 2 was given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges.2. The respondent 2 preferred an appeal to the (Additional) Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (Madras Act 36 o...
Govinda Chettiar Vs. Pachayappa Pandithar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ382
Jagadisan, J.1. Govinda Chettiar, the owner of premises No. 79-A, Bazaar Street, Tindivanam, filed an application for eviction of his tenant Pachayappa Pandithar before the District Munsif of Tindivanam under the provisions of Section 7(3)(iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. The premises was a non-residential building within the terms of the said Act and the tenant was carrying on the business of a barber shop therein. The tenant had executed a rental deed, dated 8th June, 1953, which was for a period of one year on a rental of Rs. 14 per month. The grounds on which the owner sought to evict the tenant were : (i) the tenant was in arrears of rent for a period of six months and 20 days and that there was wilful default in not paying the rent; (ii) that the tenant committed acts of waste by removing the door and the door-frame; and (iii) that the owner was carrying on business in flour milling and that the premises is required for locating his business;2. The...
Nallakaruppan Chettiar Vs. Subbiah thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: AIR1960Mad331; 1960CriLJ932; (1960)IIMLJ455
ORDER(1) This is a revision preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Tirumayam in C. C. No. 37 of 1959, confirmed by the learned District Magistrate of Tiruchirapalli, in C. A. No. 76 of 1959.(2) The short facts are: On 25-10-1958, at 10 A. M. a bull and cow belonging to the accused were grazing on the fields belonging to the complainant's master Sethu Raman Chettiar of Pasumadam. P. W 4 caught them and was taking them to the pound. While he was going near the Vachakasalai the accused who is the owner of the cattle asked him not to take them to the pound. But P.W. 4 persisted and stated that they had damaged his mater's crops and if the accused wanted the cattle to be not taken to the pound he should approach his master. The accused became irritated and beat P.W. 4 with his chappals and rescued the cattle forcibly from the hold of P.W. 4. Thereupon P.W. 4 informed his master and a complaint was filed.(3) The case for the accused was one of total de...
In Re: Muthiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ474; [1960]11STC287(Mad)
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This batch of revision cases arises from the convictions and sentences in C.C. Nos. 29 to 32 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koilpatti. The accused, who is an oil-monger, was convicted under Section 15(2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate sentenced the appellant to fines of Rs. 300, Rs. 400, Rs. 400 and Rs. 600. But the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, affirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentences uniformly to Rs. 100 each.2. The facts are short. The revision petitioner is an oil-monger running a country chekku for expelling oil. I need not point out that a country press can be used for extracting oil from groundnuts, gingelly, cocoanuts and castor seeds.3. On 13th November, 1966, P.W. 1, the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer inspected the shop of the accused and found him dealing in different kinds of oils and trading in oils by purchasing from others. He recorded the statement, exhibit ...
Perumal Konar and ors. Vs. Ponnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ473
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. The respondents are landless poor Harijans of Mangulam in Vridhachalam Taluk. In the first quarter of 1958 they were assigned waste Government lands under the Board's Standing Orders in R.S. Nos. 114/1, 54/4, 115/1, 21/12-B, 54/2, 54/3, 50/1, 54/1, 50/2, iii/i, 36/16, 189/1, 189/2 and 50/4 of Mangulam villages. It would appear that the caste ryots of the village who were interested in these waste lands objected to the assignment and therefore sought to disturb the possession of the assignees.2. I need not point out that waste lands are always at the disposal of the Government. Rules for assignment are twofold. If the waste lands are being reserved for assignment to certain categories of people like Harijans or Tyagls or ex-military men, the right of the State to assign them to them cannot be disputed. But if in the case of unreserved waste lands competition for assignment is between two sets of unprivileged persons, the Board's Standing Orders make provision for pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »