Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)1MLJ97
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, in certain interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners herein in claim petitions preferred by the first respondent in W.P. No. 1736 of 1969 and the second respondent in each of the remaining writ petitions. All the petitioners are owners of motor transport undertakings coming within the scope of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (Central Act XXVII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The first respondent in W.P. No. 1736 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 287 of 1967 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming overtime wages. The second respondent in W.P. No. 1829 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 399 of 1966 claiming difference in wages between the minimum wages payable to him and the wages actually paid to him. The second respondent in W.P. No. 1895 of 1969 has filed C.P. No. 240 of 1967 claiming washing allowance provided for under Section 10(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad368; [1957]8STC177(Mad)
Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. 1. These are petitions for the Issue of writs of prohibition directed against the Deputy Commercial tax Officer, Non-resident special circle, Madras, requiring him not to take further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him to the respective petitioners. The point raised by the writ petitions at the stage of the final argument was as regards the constitutional validity of the Sales tax Law Validation Act, 1956 (Central Act VII of 1956) which we shall refer to as the impugned Act. 2. Before discussing the legal points raised, it would be useful to set out the main facts of the three cases which are nearly identical. 3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 37 of 1955 is the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Bangalore. This company which manufactures textile goods in Bangalore city was effecting sales in the State of Madras and the goods were delivered in Madras in pursuance of such sales. The Deputy Commercial tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1979Mad223
1. This second appeal has been posted before the Full Bench as the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act (Act 26 of 1974) has been challenged by the appellants herein.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 169 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram seeking partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/4th share in the suit properties which consisted of two houses and certain agricultural lands. Her case was that her deceased husband Elumalai Reddiar, defendants 3 and 4, one Kannappa Reddiar, the husband of the second defendant and father of the first defendant and one Devendran were members of a Hindu Joint Family, that the plaintiff's husband died in the year 1947, that Devendran died in the year 1948 but that the family continues to be joint and therefore she is entitled to claim 1/4th share as the widow of the deceased co-parcener, Elumalai Reddiar.3. The suit was resiste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad524; (1921)41MLJ177
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from ara order passed by Kumaraswami Sastri, J. under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to make a reference to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act 1918, and raises questions of importance as to, the jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order. The case has been very fully argued before us by the learned Advocate-General for the appellant and by Mr. Aiyangar for the respondent and we also heard Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for other persons who have applications of a similar nature pending.2. The powers conferred on a High Court by Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act are in lieu of the power to issue the writ of mandamus inherited from the Supreme Court which is taken away by Section 50, and Clause (b) of the proviso makes it clear that. the section does not authorise the making of 'any order which is otherwise expressly excluded by any law for the time being in forc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1921)ILR44Mad718
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an Appeal from an order passed by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act directing the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax to make a reference to the High Court under Section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1918, and raises questions of importance as to the jurisdiction of the High Court to make such an order. The case has been very fully argued before us by the learned Advocate-General for the appellant, by Mr. Aiyngar for the respondent, and we also heard Mr. A. Krishnaswami Ayyar for other persons who have applications of a similar nature pending.2. The powers conferred on a High Court by Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act are in lieu of the power to issue the writ of mandamus inherited from the Supreme Court which is taken away by Section 50, and Clause (h) of the proviso makes it clear that the section does not authorize the making of:any order which is otherwise expressly excluded by any law for the time being in force.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ1030Mad; (1992)IIMLJ573
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. I. Introduction : By an order of reference dated April 23, 1992, a Division Bench referred seven of the above writ petitions to a larger Bench. The Honourable the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for hearing the cases. The matters were listed for orders on April 30, 1992 and with the consent of counsel, we fixed the date of hearing as June 22, 1992. At the instance of counsel appearing in the other writ petitions, the Honourable the Chief Justice directed those matters also to be posted before us as the questions involved are common. When the matters were heard, 18 writ petitions were posted in all for hearing. In the course of the hearing, it was pointed out that several writ petitions had been filed for similar reliefs by persons in similar position after the Division Bench heard the matters and reserved orders and before it made the order of reference. Counsel had no objection to our passing orders on those writ petitions too, as no further argument was inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1949CriLJ405
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Periz-weig alias Robert Liversidge to be a person of hostile associations and that by reason thereof it is necessary to exercise control over him: Now, therefore, I, in pursuance of the power conferred on me by Reg. 18B, Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order: I direct that the abovementioned Jacts Perizweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's PrincipalSecretaries of State.Beyond the production of this order, the Secretary of State who made the order did not make an affidavit in the action. It was contended inter alia, that the mere production of an order signed by the Secretary of State was not a sufficient prima facie defence and the onus lay on the respondent to give evidence at the trial to prove that Sir John Anderson had reasonable grounds for the belief recited in the order. Via-count Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that there is no pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1959Mad410
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The relief sought in both these suits is the same, namely, injunction arising out of an alleged infringement of copyright with other ancillary reliefs such as damages, accounts etc. The two suits have been tried together because of certain questions of law which arise in them but as the farts are necessarily different they have to be set out separately.2. C. S. No. 54 of 1955 : The plaintiffs are Messrs. Macmillan and Co. Ltd. while the defendants are a firm of publishers carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of 'The Little Flower and Co.' Madras. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the copyright by assign-ment in respect of two works (1) The Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy, and (2) A collection of stories by Rabindranath Tagorc published under the style of 'Stories from Tagore'. The Return of the Native was prescribed by the University of Madras for the B. A. degree examination 1956, Part I English.The defendants published...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1939Mad21; (1938)2MLJ863
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted on three charges under Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, read with Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced on each charge to one year's rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. Section 7(1)(a) reads as follows:Whoever with intent to cause any person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such person or any member of his family or person in his employ, or loiters at or near a place where such person or member or employed person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)1MLJ9
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by petitioner for a declaration that the Letter Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, issued under Acts 24 and 25 of Victoria Chapter 104 containing 45 clauses forming part of the Rules of the High Court, Madras (Original Side) as null and void and for appropriate orders.2. Before discussing the stand taken by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that by the amended Letters Patent dated 28th Dec., 1865, the High Court of Judicature at Madras was established, as evident from the preamble to the Letters Patent in question and quoted below and, thereby, the petitioner has practically challenged the establishment of the High Court before the same High Court:For the High Court of Judicature for the Presidency of Madras(28th December, 1865)Recitals of Acts 24 and 25 vic. C 104 - Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith. To all to whom these presents hall come, greeti...
Tag this Judgment!