Chennai Court July 1890 Judgments
Madras Railway Company Vs. Thomas Rust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad18
Handley, J.1. I consider that this is a case in which an interim injunction should be granted.2. No sufficient reason is shown in defendant's affidavit for his breach of the agreement. If any question arose between him and Mr. Phipps as to his right to conceal any trade secret he possessed, or if he had any complaint to make as to his treatment by Mr. Phipps, he should have brought the matter before the governing authority of the company and not have thrown up his employment in direct violation of his contract. It is argued that there is no mutuality in the contract because the Company has not executed the agreement, and because they can dispense with defendant's services on three months' notice. As to the first point, the Company sets up the agreement and of course is bound by it equally with the defendant. As to the second point, the Company does enter into certain covenants with the defendant, and whether on the whole the bargain is more advantageous to them or to the defendant is a...
Tag this Judgment!Byari and ors. Vs. Puttanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1890
Reported in: (1891)ILR14Mad38
1. Both Courts have failed to record a finding on several points essential to the decision of this case, and, before deciding this second appeal, we must ask the Subordinate Judge to return findings on the following issues:(i) Was the sale of 1856 evideneed by Exhibit I concluded by the ejaman for purposes binding on the family.(ii) Whether the two sisters, Puttamma and Mani, were at that time divided or undivided.(iii) Whether, at the date of the sale evidenced by Exhibit I, Mani was the vendor of an undivided share.(iv) Whether Uskunhi and his heirs have been in possession of the whole land since 1856, and, if not, who has been in possession, of how much, and for what length of time.The findings should be returned within two months from the date of the receipt of this order, and ten days, after the posting of the findings in this Court, will be allowed for filing objections. Fresh evidence may be taken.2. The findings returned by the Subordinate Judge in compliance with the above ord...
Tag this Judgment!Vellavil Periuthatta Yetchanen Nambudri and anr. Vs. Siva Rama Pattar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1890
Reported in: (1896)6MLJ406
1. The Subordinate Judge finds that there was no fraud or collusion on the part of the Uralers who were defendants in Small Cause Suit No. 377 of 1883, and holds relying on the ease in Kelu v. Paidel I.L.R. (1386) M. 473 that the plaintiffs are accordingly not entitled to a decree. It is contended that it is not incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove fraud, and that it is sufficient for them to show that the wages decreed were not really due, and reliance is placed on the Full Bench dicision in Ittiachan v. Vellappan I.L.R. (1888) M. 484 and other cases which followed it.2. It was pointed out in Kelu v. Paide I.L.R. (1386) M. 473 that there is a distinction, between the position of those who are possible future Uralers or have a reversionary Uraima right as the plaintiffs have, and the Anandravans of an ordinary tarwad having a present interest in the property. In the one case the Devasom is fully represented by its Uralers; in the other the tarwad is the substantial defendant. A mere re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›