Chennai Court July 1955 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Standard Cotton and Silk Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad382; (1955)IILLJ484Mad; (1956)IMLJ169
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Since the point involved in both these petitions was the same they were heard together.2. The Standard Cotton and Silk Weaving Company, Ltd. Calicut, the petitioner in W. P. No. 687 of 1954, was the owner of a factory engaged in the manufacture of handloom fabrics and furnishing materials. The Premier Hosiery Works, Ltd. Calicut, the petitioner in W.P. No. 688 of 1954, was the owner of a factory engaged in the manufacture of hosiery goods. Each of the petitioner firms contended that it had to close down its business in December 1953.3. The Employees' Provident Funds Act (Act XIX of 1952) came into force on 4 March 1952. Section 1(3) of the Act extended the operation of the Act in the first instance to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I in which fifty or more persons were employed. 'Textiles' was one of the industries specified in Schedule I. That each of the petitioners came within the scope of Section 1(3) of the Act was not in dispute...
Govinda Konar Vs. Murugan Transports Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1955
Reported in: (1955)IILLJ491Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the decree and judgment of the learned sub ordinate judge of Dindigul in S.C.S. No. 134 of 1952.2. The facts are:-The plaintiff was employed under the defendant. He was dismissed from service on 25 January 1949 on account of his having participated in a strike. On the complaint by the employee that he was unjustly dismissed, there was an enquiry by the industrial tribunal, Madurai. The tribunal decided that the dismissal of the plaintiff was unjustified and directed his reinstatement, but the order of reinstatement was silent about the arrears of pay. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of salary and it was resisted by the employer on two grounds, viz. (a) on the ground of jurisdiction and (b) limitation.3. The learned subordinate judge held that he had jurisdiction to go into the controversy because though the order of the industrial tribunal was silent about the arrears of pay till reinstatement...
Nagammal Vs. Agoramurthi (Minor) by His Next Friend and Grandfather Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad248; (1956)1MLJ465
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. Her husband one Muthayya Pillai, executed a deed of settlement on the 12th March, 1947, the construction of which is one of the questions to be determined in this appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that there is a settlement of the properties under the document providing for a life interest in favour of the defendant and a vested remainder in his favour. The suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit properties after the lifetime of the defendant. Subsequent to the execution of Exhibit B-1, the deceased husband of the defendant executed two other documents in quick succession, one on the 9th April, 1947, Exhibit B-2, a will and the other on the 27th June, 1947, Exhibit A-1, a settlement deed. By these two documents whatever rights that were conferred on the plaintiff had been taken away and absolute rights in the properties were conferred on the defendant. The contention of the defendant was that notw...
Vakkat Bappu and ors. Vs. the Election Authority, Viz., the Regional I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ45
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent, the Election Authority, from holding the election for Presidentship of the Marancherry Panchayat in accordance with the orders issued on 6th November, 1953.2. Marancherry Panchayat is a minor panchayat governed by the provisions of Madras Act X of 1950 and the rules framed thereunder. The Election Authority notified 22nd October, 1953, as the date on which the elections were to be held for the membership of the panchayat as well as the office of the President of the Panchayat. I am concerned now only with the question of the regularity of the proceedings adopted by the Election Authority to conduct the election to the office of the President of the Panchayat. The first notice issued by the Election Authority directed that all the voters entitled to vote and whose names were borne on the electoral rolls of the ...
Subramannaya Bhatta Vs. Devadas Nayak and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad693; (1955)2MLJ625
1. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised a question of law, not covered by any decision of our High Court, as to the powers of an appellate Court to refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration. During the pendency of the appeal, A. S. No. 29 of 1950, the District Judge of South Kanara, on the joint application of both the parties to the appeal, referred the matter to arbitration; and on receipt of the a ward which went against respondent 3, he filed a petition, R. I. A. No. 228 of 1952, to set aside the award and to hear the appeal on the merits.Before the learned District Judge, two grounds were taken by the petitioner": (1) that the notices required by S. 14 were not given, and (2) that the appellate Court cannot refer a dispute to arbitration and that the reference itself was therefore bad. The learned District Judge negatived both the contentions and held that the reference to arbitration was proper and within the powers of the appellate 'Court, an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›