Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-20-1929
Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-23-1929
Reported in : 123Ind.Cas.47
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Sections 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, for restitution against the 3rd respondent in A.S. No. 256 of 1924 before this Court and also for the recovery of costs that were ordered to be paid by the claimants Nos. 1 and 2 in the two connected appeals, Nos. 256 of 1924 and 334 of 1924. The facts of the case are stated in detail by the learned District Judge and need not be re-stated.2. It appears that a sum of Rs. 22,614-12-0 was ordered to be paid in excess by the District Judge to the claimants in a certain land acquisition proceeding on a reference to him under the Land Acquisition Act. Against the order to pay the excess amount two appeals were preferred to the High Court, one A.S. No. 324 of 1924 by the claimants in that proceedings, and another, A.S. No. 256 of 1924 by the Government. In A.S. No. 256 of 1924, the Government filed an application for stay of execution of the order that the 3rd respondent may be allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-04-1929
Reported in : 126Ind.Cas.481
1. Having regard to the amendment of the Act, we consider that this petition is now maintainable in this Court and order the case to be posted before the learned Judge in Chambers....
Tag this Judgment!