Chennai Court July 1960 Judgments
Swami Motor Transport (Private) Ltd. by Its Managing Director, T.A. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad180
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Raja-gopalan, J. in W. P. No. 467 of 1957 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstance. The appellants before us. Messrs. Swamy Motor Transport (Private) Ltd., held permits to ply buses 'on the route Tanjore to Kurnbakonam. They applied on 4th January, 1958 for a variation of the route to enable them to ran two of their buses, MDO 1081 and MDO 1100, from Tanjore to Koradacheri via Kumbakonarn and Kodavasal.On receipt of this application the Regional Transport Authority published a notification under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There were two other operators on the route Kumbakonam to Kodavasal, namely, Messrs. Raman and Raman and Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. Sri Rama Vilas Service sent a representation opposing the grant of variation. Raman and Raman allege that they also sent a representation, but that has not been traced.It was pointed out that according to the procedure laid down by th...
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras-2 Vs. Regional Provident Fun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad226; [1961(2)FLR156]; (1961)ILLJ610Mad; (1961)1MLJ179
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner company, which was formed in 1946, engaged itself in the newspaper industry and published newspapers including the Indian Express. It had a provident fund itself and its assets were entrusted to three trustees, including the Chairman of the company, and a representative of the employees. The Employees Provident Fund Act, 19 of 1952, came into force in 1952, hut that Act did not then cover the employers and employees in the newspaper industry.When the Working Journalists Conditions of Service Miscellaneous Provisions Act 45 o 1955 came into force towards the end of 1955, Section 15 of that Act extended the provisions of Act 19 of 1952 to newspaper establishments, of which the petitioner's was one. On 4-12-1956 a notification was issued under the provisions of Act 19 of 1932, applying the provisions of that Act to newspapers with effect from. 31-12-1956, which in effect meant that the statutory scheme under Act 19 of 1952 applied thereafter to the pe...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras, Represented by the Accommodation Controller Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ384
ORDERP.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Though the application for fixation of fair rent was disposed of on the lacts and this Court cannot interfere with the finding arrived at by the learned Judge regarding the quantum of fair rent, the learned Government Pleader has raised several interesting questions of law turning on the interpretation of Section 3(5) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949. His contention, if I understood him right, was that in the case of buildings taken over by the State under Section 3 ol the Act, there cannot be at any time any application for the fixation of fair rent. Section 3(5) inter alia says that if the building is required for any of the purposes specified m Sub-section (3) the landlord shall deliver possession of the building to the authorised officer and the State Government shall be deemed to be tenant of the landlord from the date on which the authorised officer received notice under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2). In such a case, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Ayyar Vs. Vellayya Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad283
Jagadisan, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal obtained a decree for arrears of Pattom due to him against the respondent in O. S. No. 233 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottah. The date of that decree, a copy of which has been marked as Ex. P.2, is 8-2-1954. On 7-9-1954 the appellant executed a receipt in favour of the respondent, Ex. P. 1 in the case, in which he admitted having received a sum of Rs. 275 in full satisfaction of the decree.The respondent filed a petition in the District Munsif Court, Shencottah, on 3-11-1954, to enter up satisfaction of the decree alleging that he had paid Rs. 275 to the appellant in full satisfaction of the decree and that the appellant having undertaken to report satisfaction of the decree unlawfully failed to do so. The appellant resisted this application. The learned District Munsif of Shencottah dismissed the application of the respondent on 21-12-1954.The matter was taken up in appeal to the District Court, Quilon, but...
Tag this Judgment!Management of woodbriar Estate, Devarshola Post and Sussex Estates, Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad359; [1961(2)FLR358]; (1960)IILLJ673Mad; (1960)IILLJ673Mad; (1961)1MLJ366
1. The Sussex Estate in the Nilgiris one of the two estates belonging to and managed by the petitioner, had amongst its employees one M. Mohamed and one P. Hydross. For violating certain clauses of the standing orders and for abusing the superintendent of the estate in vulgar language when questioned about it, the two workers were charged by the management on 4-12-1958. When the charges were being handed over to the workers by the superintendent on the following day, the workers were alleged to have behaved in an insubordinate manner, by abusing the superintendent in vulgar and filthy languageThe management, thereupon, framed charges against the two workers in respect of what happened that day, and on certain other matter. M. Mohamed was charged (1) for abusing the superior officer in filthy language when the previous chargesheet was handed over to him, (2) for declaring openly that he would disobey the orders of his superiors, and (3) for riotous and disorderly behaviour at the muster...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Nadar Thankaswamy Nadar Vs. Champaka Pillai Meenakshi Ammal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad413
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil in A. S. No. 846 of 1957, the substantial question involved in this appeal being the propriety of a conversion of a suit instituted for ejectment into one for redemption. 2. One Kuzhikattu Madam, which shall hereafter be referred to as the Madam, was the owner of an extent of 4-60 acres of land in the village of Veinbanur in the Nagarcoil taluk. Before the survey, the land was designated as bearing No. 96 which in vernacular was called 'Lakkam 96'. Under the survey the land was described by two numbers, 4308 and 4309. No. 4308 was in the north covering an extent of about 3.55 acres and 4309 was in the southeast covering an extent of 1.05 acres. In 1868 M. E. 1043 the Madam mortgaged an extent of 1.05 acres situate southeast of Lakkam, 96 to one Sivanadian. The mortgage was followed by another similar transaction between the same parties about 16 years later. About 1...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Sangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad198; 1961CriLJ675; (1961)1MLJ20
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal fifed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, one Sangammal, by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C. C. No. 120 of 1959. The facts are very simple, and within a short compass. The respondent was prosecuted for sale of adulterated butter under Section 16(1)(g)(i) read with Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The facts are not in dispute that the respondent sold three-quarter pound of butter to the Food Inspector which, on analysis, was found to have been adulterated.The plea of the respondent was that she sold only goat's butter, which does not fall within the ambit of the definition in the rules of the Act, and that consequently, she was not liable for any offence. I may here briefly state that the analyst's certificate shows that the sample contained 85 per Cent of fat not derived from milk or cream. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, this implies that 15 per cent of t...
Tag this Judgment!indersaIn Vs. Mohammed Raza Gowher and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad258
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1593 of 1955 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the decree and judgment of the learned Third Assistant Judge in so far as they are against him. The suit was for the recovery of the principal and interest due in respect of a promissory note executed by the defendants on 4th July 1951 for a sum of Rs. 8000. The plaintiff alleged that nothing had been paid either towards principal or interest and a total sum of Rs. 10,160 was due for principal and interest on the date of suit. The plaintiff further alleged that by way of security for the moneys so advanced the defendants deposited the title deeds of the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule with the plaintiff, authorising him to hold the said documents which had been previously given to him in pursuance of a simple mortgage for Rs. 15,000, executed by the defendants in his favour, and therefore a mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created in fa...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras by the Secretary, Revenue Department and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ591
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of our learned brother Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in which he held that the charitable trusts founded by Urumu Seshachlam Chettiar did not constitute Hindu Public Charitable Endowments within the scope of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951). The learned Judge directed the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Notification, dated 20th September, 1957, issued by the Government under Section 3 of that Act, extending the provisions of that Act to these charities. That Act has since been repealed and has been replaced by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959). There has been no change in the relevant statutory provisions we have to consider in this appeal. We shall refer to the statutory provisions of Act XIX of 1951, and we shall refer to it as the Act in the rest of this judgment.2. Paragraph 4 of the Trust deed, dated 12th November, 1952, execu...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of A. Khader Mohideen Bros., Express Beedi Factory, Gud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)IILLJ669Mad; (1960)IILLJ669Mad
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in I. D. No. 23 of 1958, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, and quashing the order therein dated 12-6-1958. In March 1954 the petitioner, which is a firm of partners carrying on business in the name of Express Beedi Factory, Gudiyattam, in the North Arcot District, established a beedi factory at Gudiyattam for the manufacture and sale of beedies.The management employed about 55 workers. The system adopted was to distribute beedi leaves to the workers who subsequently rolled beedies. The workers were paid on the piece work basis. In the beginning of the year 1955, disputes arose between the management and the workers in regard to quality and quantity of the beedi leaves distributed. But those disputes were settled. The settlement did not, however, achieve its object.It was harbinger of fresh demands and disputes, and the matter came to h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »