Chennai Court November 1961 Judgments
Workmen of the South India Saiva Sidhhanta Works Publishing Society, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad142; [1963(6)FLR138]; (1962)IILLJ120Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a petition by a dismissed workman through his Union to quash the order of the Government dated 14th September 1959 declining to make a reference for adjudication of an industrial dispute relating to the propriety of the termination of his services.2. He was employed as a Head clerk in the South India Saiva Siddhanta Works, a publishing society. By Its letter dated 9th December 1958, the employer dismissed him from service with effect from the forenoon of 10th December 1958, on the ground that the Managing director of the Society presumed that he had written an article in the 'indunesan' dated 24th October 1958, regarding some alleged malpractices in the Society. The cause of the Head clerk was taken by his Labour Union and became the subject matter of a dispute which the concerned Labour officer attempted to unsuccessfully conciliate. The labour officer made a report on 10th August 1959 of his failure to conciliate. Thereafter the Government passed the fol...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of the South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Societ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ355
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This is a petition by a dismissed workman through his Union to quash the order of the Government, dated 14th September, 1959, declining to make a reference for adjudication of an industrial dispute relating to the propriety of the termination of his services.2. He was employed as a Head Clerk in the South India Saiva Siddhanta Works, a Publishing Society. By its letter dated 9th December, 1958 the employer dismissed him from service with effect from the forenoon of 10th December, 1958, on the ground that the Managing Director of the Society presumed that he had written an article in ' Indunesan' dated 24th October, 1958, regarding some alleged malpractices in the Society. The cause of the Head Clerk was taken by his Labour Union and became the subject-matter of a dispute which the concerned Labour Officer attempted to unsuccessfully conciliate. The Labour Officer made a report on 10th August, 1959, of his failure to conciliate. Thereafter the Government passed the...
Tag this Judgment!iyanar Coffee and Tea Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC290(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner was a dealer in coffee, tea etc. He was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivaikuntam at Tuticorin, for the year 1957-58 on a net turnover of Rs. 16,24,177, assessable to tax at various rates. This turnover included a turnover of Rs. 7,56,861-59 nP., which was in respect of sales of pure coffee powder. The. contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that coffee powder is not included in the term 'coffee' under Section 5(v) of the Act. The only question is whether the term 'coffee' includes coffee powder.2. It is not necessary to refer to the definition of 'coffee' in other enactments. It is open to the Legislature to define any expression as it likes in order to suit the object and purpose of the particular enactment. There is no indication, express or implied, in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, of the Legislature intending to confine the expression 'coffee' only to coffee seeds, and not to apply it to coffee powder. Learned...
Tag this Judgment!iyanar Coffee and Tea Co. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ356
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner was a dealer in coffee, tea, etc. He was assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivaikuntam at Tuticorin, for the year 1957-58 on a net turnover of Rs. 16,24,177, assessable to tax at various rates. This turnover included a turnover of Rs. 7,56,861-59 nP. which was in respect of sales of pure coffee powder. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that coffee powder is not included in the term ' Coffee' under Section 5 (v) of the Act. The only question is whether the term ' Coffee ' includes coffee powder.2. It is not necessary to refer to the definition of ' Coffee ' in other enactments. It is open to the Legislature to define any expression as it likes in order to suit the object and purpose of the particular enactment. There is no indication, express or implied, in the Madras General Sales Tax Act of the Legislature, intending to confine the expression ' Coffee ' only to coffee seeds, and not to apply it to coffee powder. Learn...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanikachala Pillai Vs. A. Raghava Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad423
(1)The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1242/- with future interest and costs charged on the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif of Vellore. An appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also unsuccessful. Hence this second appeal.(2) The plaintiff sold the suit property to the first defendant and to one Namadeva Reddiar under Ex. B-1 dated 7-6-1951 for Rs. 3000. Out of that sum Rs. 2000 was paid in cash and for the balance of Rs. 1000 defendants 1 and 2 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the suit promissory note was lost and he brought the suit against the defendants an the original cause of action and prayed for a charge decree against the property. The first defendant contended that he paid two amounts of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 400 on two different dates and endorsed the payments on the promissory note and that when he wanted to make the third payment and discharge the prom...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Electricity Department Canteen Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1961
Reported in: [1962]13STC288(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioner before us is the Electricity Department Canteen, Mount Road, Madras, and the question raised is whether the sales turnover of this canteen for the year 1954-55 is within' the ambit of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, The canteen consists of about 500 members with a share capital of Rs. 2,500. It is stated that the object and purpose of this canteen is mainly to serve the members of the canteen with lunch and tiffin, but it is conceded that there is no prohibition, in the byelaws governing the canteen, of sale of lunch and tiffin to outside persons. The question for consideration is whether the canteen is a 'dealer' within the Act and whether the transactions of this canteen can be called 'sales' within the meaning of that expression in the Act. Whatever may be the position where the catering is strictly confined to the members of the canteen, if the canteen also catered to outsiders, it is impossible to hold that there has been no sale. There have b...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Electricity Department Canteen Vs. the State of Madras Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ344
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner before us is the Electricity Department Canteen, Mount Road, Madras, and the question raised is whether the sales turnover of this canteen for the year 1954-55 is within the ambit of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The canteen consists of about 500 members with a share capital of Rs. 2,5,00, It is stated that the object and purpose of this canteen is mainly to serve the members of the canteen with lunch and tiffin, but it is conceded that there is no prohibition in the bye-laws governing the canteen, of sale of lunch and tiffin to outside persons. The question for consideration is whether the canteen is a ' dealer ' within the Act and whether the transactions of this canteen can be called ' sales' within the meaning of that expression in the Act. Whatever may be the position, where the catering is strictly confined to the members of the canteen, if the canteen also catered to outsiders, it is impossible to hold that there has been no sale. There have be...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thulasingam Vs. Padmavathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1961
Reported in: 1963CriLJ546
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate, in M.P. No. 1324 of 1961 in M.C. No. 906 of 1961 on his file, refusing to set aside the ex parte order for enhanced maintenance made against the petitioner.2. The petitioner is alleged to have been served by registered pest in an application filed by the respondent under Section 488 Cri.P.C. The only question for consideration in this petition is whether it is proper service on which the petitioner could be set ex parte on the ground that he wilfully avoided service or wilfully neglected to attend court. It has been held in several decisions that the service of summons by registered post on the person proceeded against under Section 488 Cri.P.C. is not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code, and that in such a case the person cannot be proceeded against ex parte under the proviso to Section 488(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Vide Gurnam Singh v. Mr. Datto AIR 1950 EP 20, George v...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Chettiar Vs. V. Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad447
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been posted before this Full Bench in view of the challenge made to the correctness of the decision reported in Sita Ramanjaneyulu v. Krishnayya (1952) 2 M.L.J. 231. The subject matter of this Revision Petition relates to certain proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XXV of 1949). Even earlier, that is on 1st February, 1955, the respondent had filed a petition (H.R.C. No. 35 of 1955) for a similar relief before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli, the ground alleged being that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and had sub-let the building which according to him was also required for personal occupation. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. An appeal from that order proved fruitless. The respondent questioned the correctness of that order under Section 12-B of the Act in C.R.P. No. 15 of 1957 on the file of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Perumal Chettiar Vs. V. Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ218
Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been posted before this Full Bench in view of the challenge made to the correctness of the decision reported in Sita Ramanjaneyulu v. Krishnayya (1952) 2 M.L.J. 231. The subject matter of this Revision Petition relates to certain proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XXV of 1949). Even earlier, that is on 1st February, 1955, the respondent had filed a petition (H.R.C. No. 35 of 1955) for a similar relief before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli, the ground alleged being that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and had sub-let the building which according to him was also required for personal occupation. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. An appeal from that order proved fruitless. The respondent questioned the correctness of that order under Section 12-B of the Act in C.R.P. No. 15 o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »