Chennai Court December 1963 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.
The Secretary, Tiruchengode Mill Workers' Union Vs. the Industrial Tri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ320
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The Industrial Tribunal, Madras, adjudicated a dispute that was referred to it. The question it had to consider was whether the deduction of two days wages of the employees--members of the Tiruchengode Mill Workers 'Union, Tiruchengode, on the nth and 12th June, 1960, by the Management, is justified and to what relief they are entitled. The payment of wages for these two days is covered by the National and Festival Holidays Act, 1958, and it is not denied that but for certain features wages would have to be paid for these two holidays. What happened was that on the 24th of May, 1960, there was a strike of all the workers. This was claimed by the Management to be an illegal strike, because no proper notice had been given to the Management before the strike and also because the dispute which led to the strike was pending before the Tribunal. The strike was accordingly held by the Tribunal to be an illegal strike. The Tribunal further held that according to Provis...
A. Alamelu Ammal Vs. the Accommodation Controller
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ359
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the bungalow and outhouse of No. g Hindi Prachar Sabha Street, T. Nagar. The outhouse had been let to one Sundaram. The petitioner applied to the Accommodation Controller seeking to have the outhouse released for her personal occupation. The tenant contested the petition and the matter was finally posted for orders to 31st October, 1957. Some days prior to that date, the tenant is said to have reported to the Accommodation Controller that he had vacated the premises. On 31st October, 1957, the owner took possession of the premises. The Accommodation Controller issued a notice to the petitioner asking her to give notice of vacancy. On 3rd November, 1957, the petitioner sent a registered reply setting out the details. She also alleged therein that since the rent was less than Rs. 25, no notice was obligatory but nevertheless since a notice was demanded by the Controller, she was submitting one. This was duly acknowledged on 5th Nove...
Loganathan Minor and anr., by Next Friend and Guardian A. Sundaram Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad327
Venkatadri, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 238 of 1958 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The appellants herein are plaintiffs 1 and 2. The plaintiffs filed this suit in forma pauperis for partition of the suit properties and for separate possession in the joint family property and to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 392 of 1955 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore in favour of defendants 3 to 5, and to declare them not binding on the plaintiffs and also for maintenance for plaintiffs 3 and 4 at the rate of Rs. 30 per month.2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the second defendant. The third plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant while the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The fifth plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. All of them are residing in Coimbatore. The plaintiffs and the first and second defendants form members of a joint Hindu family. Defendants 1 and 2 a...
M. Penniah Nattar Vs. the Collector of Thanjavur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ363
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. Section 152(10) of the Madras Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) prohibits any debate at the time of consideration of a motion of no confidence in the President of a Panchayat. In the present case the complaint of the petitioner,. President is that this mandatory provision has been violated and that therefore the result of the proceedings stands vitiated. The writ prayed for is to quash the proceedings of the Collector notifying the removal of the President from the office oh the basis of the resolution in question.2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector it is stated that the meeting was held on 3rd March, 1962, and that the members who were present considered each and every charge and passed the resolution of no confidence against the President and that this cannot be considered a debate on the motion. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner along with which he filed a true translation of the proceedings of the Panchayat at that meeting. ...
B. Jayarama Mudaliar Vs. Bhoomi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: 1964CriLJ600
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision proceeding by the tirst respondent in, M. IC. No. 72 of 1952 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Viliupuram will have to be allowed on m* short point that the learned Magistrate, in deciding tnts question of dispute concerning user of immoveauie property under Section 147 Cri. (P. C. has acted upon the evidence oi affidavits, which does not appear to be warranted by me terms of the section. The learned Magistrate apparently thought, upon the analogy in the specific provision in Section 145(1) Cri. P. C, and the employment of the words 'ana the provisions of Section 145 shall, ;as far as may be, be applicable' in Section 147 (1-A) Cri. P. C, that he could receive affidavit evidence even in proceedings unaer the laner section. The very point came up before a single Judge of the Patna High Court in Manickchand v. unubaneswar, flm 1961 Pat 278. The learned Judge pointed out tnat Sub-section (1) of Section 145 makes specific provision that the part...
In Re : Perumal Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: 1965CriLJ389
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. The revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 16(i)(b) and (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, XXXVII of 1954, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 upon each count. Very briefly stated, the case is to the effect that on 23.3.1962 at about 5.30 a.m. in Nanguneri, the Food' Inspector P.W. 1, who was then standing in front of the Blue Mountain hotel, stopped this division petitioner who was carrying a milk can (M.O. 1) containing about two measures of milk for sale at the hotel. P.W. 1 demanded a sample for analysis, but, instead of complying with the demand of the officer, the revision petitioner placed the can inside the hotel and immediately took to his heels, and ran away. He could not be caught at that time. P.W. 1 then took samples from the milk, with the help of the hotel proprietor. We may take these facts as established by the evidence.2. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the revision petitioner was clearly guilty of an ...
A.H.M. AllaudIn Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, Madras, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR900(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The question that stands referred to us for decision i :'Was the assessee entitled to relief from double taxation with reference to the assessment for the year 1946-47?'For the previous year ending with December 31, 1945, the Indian assessment of the assessee was completed in 1947. It included the foreign income, that is to say, income from business carried on in Colombo of Rs. 1,73,964. Upon the total income, the tax was computed at Rs. 1,20,346. On appeal, however, the total foreign business income was reduced somewhat, and the tax liability was also reduced to Rs. 1,07,678-8-0. After giving effect to various payments made by the assessee, it was determined that a refund of Rs. 12,667-8-0 was due to the assessee.It appears that the first Ceylon assessment was also made in 1947, and a tax of Rs. 2,21,756 was levied and paid. There was an additional assessment made some time later and the tax computed as due was also paid. The final assessment was, however, made by the ...
In Re: S. Vaiyapuri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ445
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, J.1. The revision proceeding involves a point of some interest, with regard to the interpretation of Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act (III of 1888). We may take it as established on the facts and evidence that, according to the Court below, the two revision petitioners (A-1 and A-2) were found guilty of riotous and disorderly behaviour in a public place. They were each sentenced under Section 75 to a fine of Rs. 35 or to rigorous imprisonment for one week in default.2. As is well known, Section 75 reads as follows:Whoever is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself, is guilty of any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public place, in any place of public amusement shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or imprisonment not exceeding one month, or to both.3. I have omitted the middle part of the section, which is immaterial for our present purpose. The question is whether the part of the section that I ...
General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. J.B. Purushottam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad243; [1964(9)FLR118]
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the General Manager, soutnem Railway, Madras, from the order of Veeraswami J. in w.p. Na. 1032 of 1959, See : AIR1963Mad35 Ed. a petition filed under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, for the issue of a writ of certioran, quashing the order of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, terminating the services of the respondent in this appeal, J. B. Prushotham. The prior facts which are necessary for a consideration of the appeal are briefly the following, the respondent entered the railway service on 1st 01 February 1935, and was promoted as driver in 1945, and crumbed in that .post in October 1946. Since it was Deversed that fee had engaged himself in subversive activities, he was arrested by the police on 1-4-1948 and remained under detention till 26-2-1951, during which period lie was also placed under .suspension. Apparently the period of detention came on to an end on 26-2-1951. Un 2-4-1951, he applied to the General Manager ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Arulswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad350; 1964CriLJ167
Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, of an offence Under Section 409 I. P: C. The respondent was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiruppur, for offences of committing breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 2600 and for making false entries in the accounts of the Panchayat Board punishable Under Sections 409 and 477-A, I, P. C. respectively. The magistrate found the respondent guilty Under Section 409, I. P. C. and sentenced him to R. I. for 6 months. He acquitted the respondent of the offence Under Section 477-A I. P. C. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offence Under Section 409 I. P. C. also.2. The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows. The accused was the President of the Panchayat Board, Nerinjipet. P. W. 1 visited the Panchayat Office on 24-3-1960; P. W. 2, the clerk of the Panchayat Office, was in the premises. P. W. 2 produced the ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »