Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-25-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Mad210; (1961)1MLJ83
1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act in respect of a document which was the subject-matter of an earlier reference to this Court (R. C. No. 23 of 1957), The question then referred for decision was whether the document was to be classified as a lease or a mortgage with possession. This Court was of the opinion that the document was not a mortgage with possession, but a lease, and that it also contained a separate agreement for subrogation. The learned Government Pleader then tried to raise the question as to the proper duty leviable on the document on the footing that it was a lease. We refused to answer that question then because that was not the subject-matter of the reference. Now, the Board of Revenue, as the Chief Controlling Authority, have made a reference of the question as to what is the stamp duty chargeable for the document.2. The point for determination is whether the document would fall within Article 30(c) of Sch. I-A of the Act, that is, the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Mad313
1. The following three questions have been referred to this Full Bench by Somasundaram and Ramaswami, JJ. :-1. Whether a debt incurred before 1-10-1937 is not a debt payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act (22-3-1038) within the scope of Section 7 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, IV of 1938 if the due date for payment is later than 22-3-1938.2. Whether deposit or other sum payable on a demand is a 'debt payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of this Act' notwithstanding that the creditor has not made the demand for payment on or before 22-3-1938.3. Whether the conditions necessary for the application of Section 19 (2) to a debt in respect of which a decree has been passed are the same or Different from those applicable under Section 7 of the Act.2. This reference came to be made under the (following circumstances. One Arunachalam Chettiar was carrying on money lending business in partnership with his two sisters and another Subramaniam Chettiar, at ...
Tag this Judgment!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!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-29-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Mad212; [1961(2)FLR553]; (1960)IILLJ556Mad; (1960)IILLJ556Mad; (1961)1MLJ393
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. Sometime in 1952, there was a dispute between the management of 32 mills in Coimbatore and the workmen employed therein in regard to the bonus payable to the latter (or the years 1919, 1950 and 1951, By C. O. Ms. No. 2019 dated 9th of May 1952, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, constituted under Section 7 of Act 14 of 1947. The Industrial Tribunal took on file the dispute as I.D. No. 13 of 1952, and issued notices to the Secretary of the Coimbatore District Textile Workers' Union and to the Honorary Secretary, the South Indian Mills Owner's Association, Coimbatore, the parties mentioned in the Government Order, requiring them to file their respective statements in connection with the dispute.The Government communicated a copy of the Government order to three other Unions, namely, the Coimbatore District Textile Mills Staff Union, the Coimbatore District Textile Jobbers' Union and the National T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-24-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Mad362; [1961(2)FLR8]; (1961)1MLJ100
1. This is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners, the Management of Express Newspapers Private Ltd. Madras pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in Petition No. 60 of 1958 in I. D. No. 32 of 1937 dated 25th September 1958.2. The petitioners which are a concern printing and publishing newspapers, had employed in its staff U. Dorajraj, the second respondent herein, as an attender in its Editorial section, of the "Indian Express", Madras. On 21st July 1958, the second respondent, the employee attended office in the morning at 9 a. m. as usual and reported himself before the time keeper for duty and offered his card for punching. He was then informed that T. Gopal, the altender who was to do the night duty that day had taken sick leave on production of medical certificate, and that he should report himself to duty that day for the night shift.The ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-01-1960
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ340
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These three suits are instituted by the Home Insurance Company, Limited, a company incorporated in the United States of America against the Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras for damages in respect of three consignments of five hundred bales, two hundred bales and fifty bales of American cotton delivered to the defendant by the steamer s.s. 'Jalapanki' towards the end of April, 1952. The three suits were tried together as common questions of law and facts arise. The pleadings in the three suits are identical.2. Messrs. Finberg Trading Company, Dallas, Texas, in the United States of America consigned to Messrs. Baijnath Gangadhar & Company, Limited, Bombay, the three consignments of high density American cotton by the steamer 'Queen City' towards the end of January, 1952, for carriage to the port of Madras. The said goods were transferred at Bombay to s.s. 'Jalapanki' which arrived at Madras on the 27th of April, 1952. The landing of the goods was completed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-08-1960
Reported in : (1962)1MLJ434
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a Revision against the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 4(1)(b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, that is, for manufacturing liquor or any intoxicating drug. The Police Officer on receipt of information that some persons are distilling illicit liquor at Vennar Padugai went with two Head Constables and three Constables for a raid. According to the case of the prosecution he saw accused 1 and 2 together distilling arrack in a still. Accused 1 was said to have been kindling the fire in the oven and accused 2 changing water in the pot. The Police Officer arrested both accused 1 and 2. Then the Officer put out the fire at the oven, dismantled the still, recovered the boiler pot, M.O. I which contained two gallons of boiling wash, the mud perforated pot, M.O. 2, stone rests, M.O. 3 series, the receiver chatti, M.O. 4, the mud condenser pot, M.O. 5 and the burnt firewood pieces, M.O. 8 series. Then after taking a sample of the wash from M.O. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-16-1960
Reported in : (1960)2MLJ425
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against an order passed by the Collector and Additional District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram at Madurai on a letter from the Home Department, Madras, to the Additional District Magistrate, Madurai, which letter in turn was necessitated by a communication from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, for the extradition of the petitioner herein, against whom a complaint was laid before the Chief Magistrate, Colombo, in C.C No. 28703/A on his file for the offence of criminal breach of trust. Under the Memorandum, the. Additional District Magistrate was to make an enquiry under sectibn 3 of the Indian Extradition Act, The communication from the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, was one under Section 9 of the Indian Extradition Act. The Additional District Magistrate, after making an enquiry, has held that a prima facie case has been made out arjd has committed the petitioner to prison to await the orders of the Central Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-14-1960
Reported in : AIR1962Mad85
(1) The petitioner was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, for offences under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B and Sec. 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947, and sentenced to six months R. I., for the offence under Sec. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and for a similar term for the offence under S. 8(2) read with S. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the sentences to run concurrently. In appeal the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sec. 8(2) read with Sec. 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were set aside but the conviction and sentence for the offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act were confirmed.(2) The circumstances under which the petitioner was tried and convicted are these: The petitioner was a passenger bound for Ceylon. He came to the Customs baggage shed at Danushkadipier on 5-2-1958 for embarkation. He made a declaration in Ex. P-1 that he had only Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-22-1960
Reported in : AIR1961Mad92; 1961CriLJ382
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an application by the Public Prosecutor. Madras, to revise the order of the Town Sub Magistrate, City I, Coimbatore. The respondent and some others have been arrested in connection with counterfeiting currency notes and they have been remanded to custody. The investigation is not yet complete and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. In the course of the investigation statements have been recorded under Section 164 Crl. P. C. The respondent applied for copies of these statements. The magistrate has directed copies of those statements to be granted to the respondent. Against this order directing the grant of copies to the respondent, the present revision has been filed by the Public Prosecutor. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that these copies are not to be granted at this stage, that is, before the filing of the charge-sheet. He had also contended that even after the filing of the charge-sheet, copies of those statements should not be g...
Tag this Judgment!