Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-17-1948
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ119
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Subba Rao, J., on an application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act by the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, directing the appellant, the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, at Commercial Tax Office, North Beach Road, Madras, not to enquire into the issues, framed by it in the dispute between the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, and the Chrome Leather Company Workers' Union, of which the second respondent is the Secretary, and further directing the Tribunal to frame fresh issues in the light of his findings.2. By G.O. No. Ms. 1349 of the Development Department, Government of Madras, dated 18th March, 1948, the Government declared that an Industrial dispute had arisen between the workers and the management of the Chrome Leather Co., Limited, and as the parties to the dispute had been unable to arrive at an amicable settlement, the Government directed that the dispute be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, for adjudication under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-17-1948
Reported in : AIR1951Mad856; (1949)NULLLLJ1Mad
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Subba Rao J. on an appin. under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, by the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., directing the applt. the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, at Commercial Tax Office, North Beach Road, Madras, not to enquire into the issues framed by it in the dispute between the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., & the Chrome Leather Co. Workers' Union, of which the second resp. is the secretary, & further directing the Tribunal to frame fresh issue in the light of his findings.2. By G. O. No. Ms. 1349 of the Development Dept. Govt. of Madras, dated 18-3-1948, the Govt. declared that an industrial dispute bad arises between the workers & the management of the Chrome Leather Co. Ltd., as the parties to the dispute had been unable to arrive at an amicable settlement, the Govt. directed that the dispute be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Madura, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal thereupon called u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-30-1948
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
Decided on : Jul-30-1948
Reported in : (1949)1MLJ1
ORDER.Whereas I have reasonable cause to believe Jack Perlzweig 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 Regulation 18-B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, hereby make the following order : I direct that the above mentioned Jack Perlzweig alias Robert Liversidge be detained.(Signed) John Anderson,One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries 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. Viscount Maugham sums up his conclusion thus:The result is that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-05-1948
Reported in : AIR1950Bom230; (1950)52BOMLR231
Bhagwati J1. I have heard the parties at length on the question of the admissibility of this document. The objection is really sought to be sustained by the Advocate-General on the construction of Section 123, Evidence Act. Before, however, I consider the provisions of that section it is necessary for me to define the scope of the enquiry before me as it has been laid down in the judgment of the appeal Court. The learned Chief Justice in the course of his judgment has observed in Parpia v. Chajmarbagwalla 50 Bom. L. R. 728 : A. I. R 1949 Bom. 109:'Now, the whole question which arises is whether the discretion exercised by the Collector was big own discretion or was it a discretion that was fettered by anything the Government has done or said. In our opinion, it would not be wrong or improper for the Collector in exercising his discretion to give full weight to the general policy of Government, provided that policy is within the ambit of the Act. If the Government takes a particular vie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-03-1948
Reported in : AIR1949All663
1. This is the defendants' appeal from the decree, dated 17th April 1944, passed by the Civil Judge of Sitapur decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for possession over the properties in suit.2. The following pedigree will explain the facts:JIT SINGH|--------------------------------------------------| |First wife Second wife| |------------------------------------ || | |Putan Singh Fateh Singh || (Issueless) |Parwan Singh = Bhagwan Kuar || |Lalla Singh || |-------------------------------------------- || | |Indrapal Singh Raja Bux Singh |(Defendant 1) (Defendant 2) |----------------------------------------| |Sudha Singh Pahalwan Singh(Issueless) |-------------------------------------| |First wife Second wife| (Ram Kuar)| |-------------------------------------------- || | |Drigbijai Singh = Mt. Raj Kuar Daughter = Bibhnath |(Died on 1-11-1906) (Died on 24-12-1931) | |Kunwar Indra Bikram Singh |(Plaintiff 1) |Daughter |--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Jul-28-1948
Reported in : AIR1949PC207
Datee of decision: 28/07/1948(Part I) and 01/02/1949 (Part II). PART I: Sir Madhavan Nair: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Full Bench of the Chief Court of Oudh dated 10th May 1846, which, on appeal by the defendant, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow dated 21st March 1940. After the appeal had been filed in the Privy Council respondent 2 was made a party. [2] The appeal relates to the right of succession to a taluqa known as the Sissendi Estate and to other moveable and immovable non-taluqa properties left by Raja Chandra Shekhar and his widow Rani Subhadra Kuer. [3] The main question for decision is whether the adoption of respondent 2 by the late Rani Subhadra Kuer after the death of her husband is a valid adoption. [4] The following genealogical table will explain the relationship of the parties. Pedigree No. 1 is the pedigree of the Taluqdars of Seasendi (Sessendi Pedigree), and Pedigree No. II is the pedigree of the fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-31-1948
Reported in : (1948)2MLJ391
Subba Rao, J.1. This is a suit for declaration that the order of the Rent Controller dated the 5th April, 1948, passed in L. Dis. No. 4985 H. R. C. of 1947 in favour of the defendant is invalid, without jurisdiction and unenforceable as against the plaintiffs and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the said order.2. House, ground and premises No. 403, Mint Street, George Town, Madras, is owned by the defendant. The Corporation gave separate sub-numbers to portions of the said premises. In or about the middle of August, 1943, the first plaintiff obtained from the defendant a lease of a portion of that building numbered as 4/403, Mint Street, on a monthly rental of Rs. 55. Subsequently, by agreement between the parties the rent was increased to Rs. 60 per mensem. The first plaintiff failed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises for the month of July, 1947, before the end of August, 1947. In view of the default so made, the defendant filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-28-1948
Reported in : 1949CriLJ59
Waliullah, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Orai, recommending that an order of commitment made by a Magistrate of the first class be quashed and that the Magistrate be directed to proceed with the trial of the case. This case came up before one of us but in view of the importance of the questions involved in it, and further in view of conflicting authorities on these questions it has been referred to a Full Bench.2. It appears that on 13th November 1945, in the after-noon at about 3 P. M. a fight occur, red between two sets of villagers of village Umrar, P. Section Orai, District Jalaun. As a result of injuries received in the fight one Lalloo Ahir lost his life. One Shyam Behari filed a complaint against four brothers viz., Matoley, Lalloo, Hira Lal and Har Dayal under Section 323, Penal Code, read with Section 24, Cattle Trespass Act. Under; orders of a Magistrate police investigation followed as a result of which a case against Matoley, Hira Lal, Lalloo and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-06-1948
Reported in : AIR1949Bom1; (1948)50BOMLR426
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Coyajee. The respondent, who is the wife, filed a petition against her husband for a declaration that the marriage between them was null and void on the ground of the impotency of her husband. The husband filed a counter petition also praying for a decree of nullity on the ground that the wife suffered from impotency. Mr. Justice Coyajee decreed the wife's petition and gave her a decree for nullity of marriage. The petition of the husband was dismissed. Having granted the decree Mr. Justice Coyajee proceeded to pass the order which is the subject of this appeal, viz. to order an inquiry for the purpose of fixing the amount of permanent alimony which should be given to the wife. It was contended before Mr. Justice Coyajee that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant permanent alimony to the wife in a case where a decree for nullity was passed. Mr. Justice Coyajee rejected that contention and held that the Court had jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!