Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad1015
Govinda Menon, J.1. Madras Act I of 1947 designated the 'Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act of 1947' came into force on 12-3-1947 and was intended to be in force for a period of one year. But by Sub-clause (4) of Section 1 the Legislature had authorised the Provincial Government to extend the operation of the Act by means of notification in the Provincial Gazette; and this was done by the notification of the Provincial Government for a period of one year more, on the 11th March 1948, which meant that the Act was to continue till the 12th March 1949. The Act had also provided that the power of arrest and detention under the Act could be delegated by the Provincial Government to District Magistrates and to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras and by G. O. 907 dated 21st March 1947 this power was delegated to the Commissioner of Police of the City of Madras. Acting under that delegation, an order under Section 2(1) (a) of the said Statute was issued by the Commissioner of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad147; (1951)IMLJ628
Satyanarayana Rao J.1. This is a petn. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling the records & quashing the order of the State of Madras in G. O. No. Ms. 1517 Public General dated 10-3-1950 declaring under Section 16, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, the People's Education Society as an unlawful assocn. The petnr. is the General Secretary of the People's Education Society registered in November 1947 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI [21] of 1860), & is also a barrister-at-law & an advocate of this Court & the Supreme Ct.2. The objects of the Society as stated in the affidavit of the petnr. are among others '(a) to encourage, promote, diffuse, & popularise useful knowledge in all science & more specially Social Science; (b) to encourage, promote, diffuse & popularise political education among people; (c) to encourage, promote or popularise the study & understanding of all social & political problems & bring about social & political r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad613; (1952)IMLJ557
1. (C. M. P. No. 2591 of 1951):--This and the other connected petitions relating to the Guruvayur temple and the Chidambaram temple were heard together as they all raised the question of the validity of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927 (hereinafter called the 'earlier Act'). While these petitions were pending, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act XIX of 1951) (hereinafter called the new Act) which repealed the earlier Act was brought into force by the Madras Government on 30th September 1951 by a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette- Leave to amend the petitions was granted to the petitioners and they have been permitted to canvass the validity of the new Act as well. Mr. M. K. Nambiyar who appeared for the trustee of the Guruvayur temple argued his petition first and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar and the learned Advocate-General replied to that petition after which the petition relating to Guruvayur temple was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad225; 1965CriLJ714
(1) On 26th October 1962, the President of India proclaimed the existence of a state of emergency under Art. 352(1) of the Constitution. On the same date, the Defence of India Ordinance IV of 1962 was promulgated. On 22nd and 23rd November 1962 orders were passed under rule 30(1)(b) and rule 30(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, directing the detention of the two writ petitioners Sri K. T. K. Thangamani (W. P. 333 of 1963) and Sri Ananda Nambiar (W. P. 334 of 1963), because the government were satisfied under S. 3(2)(15)(i) of the Defence of India Act, 51 of 1962, that these persons were likely to act "in a manner prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence", and that their apprehension and detention were hence necessary in the interests of the State. These persons were allocated as detenus to the Salem Central Jail, and it is from such detention that they have preferred these petitions to this court.(2) Both the petitioners raise almost identical grounds, praying for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ300
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. These writ proceedings involve, essentially, the validity of a scheme said to have been framed and promulgated by the first respondent, namely, the Madras State transport undertaking, here represented by its Director, Mr. T.V. Venkataraman, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Chapter IV-A). The writs seek to restrain both the first respondent and the State of Madras (second respondent), from proceeding further with this promulgated scheme, under the relevant sections of the law, on the grounds exhibited in the writ petitions. As is well known, and I do not think that it is necessary, for this purpose, to proceed into the history of the prerogative writ of prohibition in the United Kingdom, a writ of prohibition issues ex debito justitiae, where absence of jurisdiction can be demonstrated ; it is not the power to nationalise the road transport service which is in issue, nor the scheme of the relevant sections ; what is claimed is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, questioning the legality of the Cement Control (Amendment) Order of 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Order) which came into force on the 16th of April, 1969, introducing certain changes in the Cement Control Order of 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Order.2. The writ petitioners asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus and other appropriate directions. Ismail, J., accepted the contentions of the petitioners on all the main points and allowed the writ petitions issuing certain directions. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2243 of 1969; Madras Cement Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2244 of 1969 and the India Cements Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P. No. 2245 of 1969.3. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, New Delhi, and (2) The Cement Controller, New Delhi, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ443
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. These four writ petitions deal with the same controversy and the facts as can be gathered from the various affidavits filed in these writ petitions are as follows:2. The South India Viscose Limited, Coimbatore, hereinafter referred to as Viscose, is a company established in 1958. It has got its factory at Sirumugai near Mettupalayam, Avanashi Taluk, Coimbatore District. The factory is engaged in the manufacture of wood pulp, rayon yarn and staple fibre. The most essential raw material for high grade rayon pulp manufacture is bluegum timbet-grown in the Government reserve as well as private forests in the Nilgiris District. For the purpose of obtaining this raw material from the forests in the Nilgiris without any interruption to its work in the factory, the Viscose had approached the Government on several occasions. The Government entered into an agreement with the said Viscose on 5th April, 1965 for the supply of bluegum wood over 7,800 acres from 1966 to 1975 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ143
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As both the writ petitions arise out of the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioner in the first case is the management and they challenge that portion of the award which is against them. The workmen have filed W.P. No. 3281 of 1971 challenging that portion of the award which is adverse to them.3. A partnership firm called 'The Mysore Premier Metal Factory' was carrying on business of manufacture in aluminium utensils and other articles from the year 1939. In or about 1945, in order to facilitate its business of manufacture, it purchased the Hindustan Metal Refinery and Rolling Mills. The Government of India gave separate registration numbers for the rolling mills purchased as well as for the undertaking owned by the firm for manufacturing utensils. In or about the year 1965 the management of Jeewanlal (1929) Limited, hereinafter referred to as the company, purchased the two undertakings owned by the Mysore Premier M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1976)ILLJ27Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner entered the field of General Insurance in December, 1941 as an Assistant in the Fire Department of the New India Assurance Company Limited and continued in that employment till July, 1943. Thereafter, he worked in various Insurance Companies. At the time of the nationalisation of General Insurance by the Government of India, in May. 1971 the petitioner was working as a Senior Branch Secretary of the General Assurance Society Limit-ed at Madras, he having been appointed to that post on 8-9-1969. After the nationalisation of the general insurance business the petitioner was asked to submit his bio-data for the purpose of fixation of his proper rank in the new set up. The petitioner submitted his bio-data ; but the work of categorisation, however, was not completed by the Committee constituted for the purpose. In the meanwhile, the Government of India thought out a new scheme under which four subsidiary companies were accorded the status of beginning or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)2MLJ22
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This group of writ petitions challenges the validity of certain orders of pre-censorship passed by the censoring authorities on three newspapers. W.P. Nos. 388, 663, 846, 992 and 1909 have been filed in regard to pre-censorship orders directed against a Tamil daily by name 'Murasoli'. in W.P. No. 1909 of 1976 the prayer, as amended, is for quashing (i) a statutory order of the Government of India dated 23rd June, 1976 passed in exercise of its powers under Rule 48 (1) of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, and (ii), an order passed by the State Censor on 24th June, 1976 in exercise of his powers under Rule 48(1)(aa) of the Defence of Internal Security of India Rules, 1971. The other writ petitions filed on behalf of 'Murasoli' relate to individual orders of the Censoring Officer in respect of particular matters sought to be published in that daily. Mr. K.K. Venugopal appearing for the petitioner in the batch of writ petitions relating ...
Tag this Judgment!