Chennai Court November 1962 Judgments
Narayana Pillai Vs. Velayuthan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad385
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This revision petition, though devoid of merits, raises a question of law.One Velayudhan PilIai, a lunatic, filed through his wife Lakshmi, as his next friend, O. S. No. 194 of 1122. (M.E) in the Sub Court, Nagarcoil, a suit for partition or family properties against the petitioner herein. During the course of the suit it was stated that Velayudhan had disappeared on 24-11-1948. Lakshmi complained that he had been spirited away by the petitioner but the latter repudiated thesuggestion and even stated that he had reason to believe that the lunatic was still alive. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 25-11-1954. Lakshmi, continuing to represent Velayudham as his next friend, took up the matter in appeal to this Court in A.S. No. 665 of 1956. No objection was taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that Velayudham had died, and the appeal came up for hearing before Rajamannar C. J, and Veeraswami J. who by their judgment dated 14-9-1960 ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Pillai Vs. Velayuthan Pillai (Unsound Mind) Represented by La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ246
S. Ramachandra Ayyar, C.J.1. This Revision Petition, though devoid of merits, raises a question of law. One Velayudham Pillai, a lunatic, filed through his wife Lakshmi, as his next friend, Original Suit No. 194 of 1122 (M.E.) in the Sub-Court, Nagercoil, a suit for partition of family properties against the petitioner herein. During the course of the suit, it was stated that Velayudham had disappeared on 24th November, 1948. Lakshmi complained that he had been spirited away by the petitioner but the latter repudiated the suggestion and even stated that he had reason to believe that the lunatic was still alive. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 25th November, 1954. Lakshmi continuing to represent Velayudham as his next friend, took up the matter in appeal to this Court in Appeal Suit No. 665 of 1956, no objection was-taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that Velayudham had died, and the appeal came up for hearing before Rajamannar, C.J., and Veeraswami, J., who ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasammal Vs. K. Subbaroya Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad402; (1963)IMLJ148
1. This second appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional DistrictJudge, Salem, dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant's father, Muthuswami Gounder, (since dead, deceased) for recovery of mesne profits. Muthuswami Gounder was the son of Chinnakutti Gounder. He instituted the suit O. S. No. 167 of 1950 for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the family properties. There was a preliminary decree on 25-9-1952 under which the appellant's father's right to a third share was declared; the other two-thirds was to be taken by Chinnakutti Goundan and his other son Sub-baraya Gounder, the latter of whom is the first respondent in this appeal. Under the plaint in the partition suit Muthuswami Gounder did not pray for recovery of subsequent mesne profits. A final decree was passed on 14-3-1956. That decree did not provide for taking of accounts of the income of the family properties and allotting to the appellant's father his legitimate share of the income f...
Tag this Judgment!Nalini Vs. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad52
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This is a revision to revise the decree of the Chief Judge, Court of Small-Causes, Madras by which he granted a decree for eviction at the instance of the respondent. The premises involved is a house in Santhome High Road which the petitioner claimed she was occupying with her husband and children as her matrimonial home. The parties were married under the Special Marriage Act in 1938. There were three children by the marriage, in 1953 differences arose between the spouses. When the wife contemplated filing an application for divorce, her counsel got into touch with the husband as regards the terms which he was prepared to allow to the wife for alimony etc. The husband wrote a letter to the wife's counsel, Ex. D-l, setting out the terms which he was willing to allow to his wife as part of the divorce arrangement, immediately thereafter a divorce petition was filed in the City Civil Court. The Divorce petition was not contested by the husband. But evidence was rec...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Voltas Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC446(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The Bombay Mutual Insurance Building, which houses the units of the Life Insurance Corporation, is a building which consists of six floors besides the ground floor. The construction of the building called for as an integral unit thereof provision for air-conditioning the entire building. The building space consists of nearly 67,000 sq. ft., the cubic contents calling for air-conditioning being nearly 8 1/4 lakhs c. ft. When the construction of the building was undertaken Messrs Voltas Limited were assigned the contract for providing the building with a system of air-conditioning of the building. This air-conditioning called for a complete air change of fresh chilled air within the space of 45 to 50 minutes to serve the needs of an approximate number of 1,000 persons distributed throughout the building. The design had to take into account the temperatures inside and outside the building during different parts of year and the humidity of the air as well. Provision had to...
Tag this Judgment!Pasumarthy Kuppu Reddy and 2 ors. Vs. the Corporation of Madras Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ128
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions are directed against levy by the respondent Corporation of Madras, of licence fee Upon each of the petitioners for licence for balconies. In Writ Petition No. no of 1961, the fee collected prior to the year 1960-61 was rupees twenty-six and fees collected in the other writ petitions were rupees ten and rupees fifty-one respectively. For the first time in the year 1960-61 the Corporation of Madras in purported exercise of its power under Section 365(2) increased the rate of licence fee leviable under Section 223 of the Madras City Municipal Act, 1919. While the rate prior to 1960-61, was rupees two per annum for the first 10 square feet or part thereof and rupee one for every additional, 10 square feet or part thereof for a projection over the street like a balcony, the rate was. enhanced for the year 1960-61, by raising it to rupee one per square foot or part thereof for the first projection of balconies, rupees two per square foot or part there...
Tag this Judgment!T. Mariasingha Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ365; [1963]14STC424(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in various kinds of oil at Asaripallam and Vadaseri within the district of Kanyakumari. Before the reorganisation of States in 1956 they were places within the Travancore-Cochin State. In respect of his turnover for the year 1956-57, he claimed that the sum of Rs. 91,755-11-0 should be excluded from the taxable turnover. This sum related to sales of laurel oil effected after 1st November, 1956, to dealers at Alleppey and other places situated in the Kerala State. The assessment in respect of that year was governed by the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. Under that Act the assessment was to be made only on the last purchaser in the State. The contention of the petitioner was that he was not the last purchaser and that the purchasers at Alleppey and other places in the Kerala State should alone be treated as the last purchasers for the purposes of levy under the Travancore-Cochin Act. This contention was overruled by the Deputy Commercia...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Ranga Vilas Motors (Private) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)IILLJ595Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is to quash an award of the industrial tribunal granting additional bonus on the basis of the total profit of Rs. 51,000 as arrived at by it. According to the profit and loss account filed before the tribunal the management showed a loss. But the tribunal added back three sums, one of Rs. 22,992 on account of miscellaneous expenses disallowed, another sum of Rs. 19,242 disallowed and added back under the head interest paid to creditors and a third sum of Rs. 4,200 disallowed and added back in respect of payment of remuneration to the managing director. So far as the last item is concerned, no question is raised in this Court. Adding the total sum of Rs, 46,433 the tribunal reached the figure of Rs. 51,000 as representing profit for purposes of determining the additional bonus. In doing so the tribunal clearly had in mind and applied the principle settled in what is known as the Full Bench formula.2. Sri M. R. Narayanaswami for the petitioner contends...
Tag this Judgment!Paragon Talkies [Owned by Presidency Talkies (Represented by Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ355Mad; (1963)IMLJ304
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. On an application by respondent 1, who resigned from service with effect from 6 January 1961, the labour court, Madras, computed the gratuity due to him under an earlier settlement. The labour court ordered a sum of Rs. 2,534 52 under Section 330(2) of the industrial Disputes Act to be paid to him on account of gratuity. This petition is to quash that order.2. The first of the contentions urged for the petitioner is that gratuity being an interim item included in Schedule III to the Act, It is the industrial tribunal which has Jurisdiction and not the labour Court. The argument admittedly the fact that what is done by the labour court is not an adjudication upon the liability of gratuity, but only computation of the gratuity which respondent, I was entitled to under an anterior settlement. The provision under Section 33C is also in a sense not original but is ezeoutory in nature, giving effect to settlement and awards by computation of the benefits flowing thereun...
Tag this Judgment!Wellington Talkies Vs. Collector of Tiruchirapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ215
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution raise the trite question, one on which there has been an uniformity of opinion expressed in this Court, whether the power vested in the licensing authority under the terms of the licence issued under the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1.955, to cancel or suspend the licence can be exercised not merely for a contravention of the terms thereof but to breaches of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under.2. Under Section 10 of the Act the Government is empowered to make Rules inter alia providing for the terms, conditions and restrictions, subject to which a licence may be granted under the Act. The Rules which prescribed the conditions applicable to, and the procedure for obtaining, a licence, provide a standard form for the licence, it being left to the licensing authority to add thereto appropriate additional conditions. The relevant portion of a licence is as follows:This licence i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »