Chennai Court April 1960 Judgments
Workers Employed in 32 Textile Mills in Coimbatore Vs. Management of D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad212; [1961(2)FLR553]; (1960)IILLJ556Mad; (1960)IILLJ556Mad; (1961)1MLJ393
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. Sometime in 1952, there was a dispute between the management of 32 mills in Coimbatore and the workmen employed therein in regard to the bonus payable to the latter (or the years 1919, 1950 and 1951, By C. O. Ms. No. 2019 dated 9th of May 1952, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, constituted under Section 7 of Act 14 of 1947. The Industrial Tribunal took on file the dispute as I.D. No. 13 of 1952, and issued notices to the Secretary of the Coimbatore District Textile Workers' Union and to the Honorary Secretary, the South Indian Mills Owner's Association, Coimbatore, the parties mentioned in the Government Order, requiring them to file their respective statements in connection with the dispute.The Government communicated a copy of the Government order to three other Unions, namely, the Coimbatore District Textile Mills Staff Union, the Coimbatore District Textile Jobbers' Union and the National T...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Seeni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1960
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1641; (1960)IIMLJ507
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision petition preferred1 against the acquittal of the accused in S. C. No. 136 of 1959 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions-Judge of Tirunelveli. That prosecution related to the murder of a man named Ramaswami Naicker, who undoubtedly received gunshot injuries at the spot of offence (Nadu Street in Varaganur village)' at about sunrise on 17-4-1959. and succumbed to-those injuries. The revision proceeding is preferred' before me by Seeni Ammal (P.W.I), the wife of the victim, Under Section 439 Cr.PCIn view of the importance of clarifying the procedure with respect to the petitions of this character particularly in the context of the restriction of out powers Under Section 439 (4) Cr.PC, we have directed the issue of notice to the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and heard both the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the revision petitioner extensively, even at the present stage of admission of this petition,2. Before proc...
Tag this Judgment!Kalimuthu Servai and ors. Vs. Govindaswami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad71; (1960)2MLJ313
Anantanaryanan, J.1.This proceeding in revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonaro in O. P. No. 5 of 1959, permitting the petitioner in the court below to sue in forma pauperis.2. The learned Subordinate Judge correctly stated that the short point for consideration was whether the petitioner had the necessary means to pay the court-fee due on the plaint. The oral evidence is within a very short compass. I see from the records that an objection was filed by the State, in which it was affirmed that the petitioner in the court below owned certain properties and trees, which would have enabled him to pay the court fee. The learned Judge was apparently unwilling to act upon the evidence of the Karnam of Arayapuram (R. W. 1) and of the Karnam of Papanasam (R. W. 2) who spoke about the properties possessed by the petitioner in the court below.It is not clear why precisely the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner did no...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumalasubbu Chettiar Vs. Smt. Rajammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad170; (1960)2MLJ539
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal originally came on for hearing before Subrahmanyara J. who considered that it was necessary to have an authoritative ruling by a Bench of this court on the question which arose in the case. The facts have been set out by the learned Judge in his order of reference and may briefly be mentioned.2. The properties described in schedules A and B belonged to two brothers Nagappa and Angappa. Both of them usfructuarily mortgaged the properties under Ex. A-1 on 20-9-1924 in favour of two persons, Eswara Nagasubramania lyer and Sambamoorthi Ganapatigal for a sum of Rs. 3000. Nagasubramania lyer assigned his share in favour of one Subramania Ganapatigal on 3-10-1939. One Ramanathan Chettiar obtained a money decree against the two brothers, Nagappa and Angappa, and in execution of that decree purchased the properties in 1928 subject to the usufructuary mortgage After his purchase Ramanathan Chettiar sold the properties described in schedule A to the defendant for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!B. Matha Gowder Vs. M.S. Kada Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad172; [1962]32CompCas643(Mad)
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in I. A. No. 433 of 1954 on his file in O. P. No. 225 of 1952 on the file of the High Court, Madras.2. Kundah Trading Co., Ltd., was directed to be wound up by an order of this court dated 22-9-1953 in the said O. P. No. 225 of 1952. On the 28th January 1954 the above interlocutory application was filed by the appellant purporting to be under Sections 185 and 195 of the Indian Com-panies Act, 1913 against the respondent herein for the following reliefs: namely, for a direction to the respondent to render an account of his management of the company during his period as managing director, to pay all sums that may be found due by him to the company and to restore to the company the unlawful gain to the tune of Rs. 49000 illegally made by him in the matter of purchase of the tea factory belonging to the company and to pay other sums, namely, Rs. 7500, being the price of tea taken by the respon...
Tag this Judgment!S.P.L.P. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. M.A.R. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad313
1. The following three questions have been referred to this Full Bench by Somasundaram and Ramaswami, JJ. :-1. Whether a debt incurred before 1-10-1937 is not a debt payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act (22-3-1038) within the scope of Section 7 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938 if the due date for payment is later than 22-3-1938.2. Whether deposit or other sum payable on a demand is a 'debt payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act' notwithstanding that the creditor has not made the demand for payment on or before 22-3-1938.3. Whether the conditions necessary for the application of Section 19 (2) to a debt in respect of which a decree has been passed are the same or Different from those applicable under Section 7 of the Act.2. This reference came to be made under the (following circumstances. One Arunachalam Chettiar was carrying on money lending business in partnership with his two sisters and another Subramaniam Chettiar, at ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Kuppuswami Gounder Vs. Alagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad391
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in the court below who applied under Section 10(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, XXV of 1955, for a decree for judicial separation from his wife (respondent) on the ground of desertion by her for the previous six years. The broad facts are simple, and undisputed for the most part, they are as follows :2. The parties were married in March 1934, and till about 1950, that is for a period of nearly 16 years, they appear to have led an amicable and happy married life. They had two daughters and a son born of this marriage. Subsequently, differences undoubtedly arose between them and the wife instituted a suit, O. S. No. 260 of 1956, (or a decree for separate maintenance On the ground that the husband (appellant) brought into the house a girl Pankajammal whom he kept openly as his mistress, and also that he physically ill-treated the wife and drove her out of the house.The wife claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30 per mensem togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. Vs. K. Bashyam alias 'Arya' and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad114
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J. in a suit C. S. No. 19 of 1952, filed on the original side of this court by the first respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) against two defendants, namely, (1) The Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd., being the proprietors of the Associated Printers, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and (2) K. S. Joseph, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000, being the estimated damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the infringement of his copyright in a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi painted by him.The plaintiff also prayed for a decree directing the second defendant Joseph to render an account to him of all sums which he had made by the sale of the offending prints which he had printed with the aid of the first defendant, directing the defendants or either of them to deliver to the plaintiff the unsold copies of the offending prints, and for an injunction restraining ...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Publishers (Madras), Ltd. Vs. K. Bashyam alias 'Arya' and A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1960
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ258
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the Judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J, in a suit C.S. No. 19 of 1952, filed on the Original Side of this Court by the first respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff) against two defendants namely: (1) TheAssociated Publishers (Madras), Ltd., being the proprietors of the Associated Printers, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and (2) K. Section Joseph, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000, being the estimated damages suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the infringement of his copyright in a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi painted by him. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree directing the second defendant Joseph to render an account to him of all sums which he had made by the sale of the offending prints which he had printed with the aid of the first defendant, directing the defendants or either of them to deliver to the plaintiff the unsold copies of the offending prints, and for an injunction res...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shaikh Dawood Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad1; 1961CriLJ96; (1960)IIMLJ230
1. On 13-10-1957 the petitioner Shaik Dawood landed in Nagapattinam from Penang. The Customs officers searched his luggage and seized 84 wrist watches valued at about Rs. 4200 which he had smuggled into the country without a permit. For this offence the petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate; Nagapattinam who, accepting this plea of guilty, convicted him under Section 5 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and Import (Control) Order, 1955, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The petitioner appealed to the Sessions Judge, East Tanjore. But that appeal was dismissed.2. On 13-10-1957, that is to say, the very day on which the watches were seized from him, a notice was served on the petitioner by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Nagappattinam, to show cause (1) why the 84 wrist watches should not be confiscated under Section 167(8), of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Expor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »