Chennai Court April 1957 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.
Pudukottah Textiles Ltd. Vs. A. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad139; (1957)2MLJ438
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner in each of these cases is the same, the Pudukottah Textiles, Ltd. The first respondent in each of these applications was an employee of the petitioner mills. It should be convenient to refer to them collectively as the respondents, except where the case of each individual employee has to be considered. Since the questions that arise for determination in these eight applications were mostly identical, I shall dispose of these applications by a common Order.2. The Government imposed a cut in the supply of electrical energy to textile mills among others in 1952 and 1953. As a result of that cut employees in several mills had to be laid off. They claimed compensation, which the managements of the mills were not inclined to grant. On 15th June, 1953, the Government referred to the Special Industrial Tribunal an industrial dispute between thee managements of the several mills and the workers in those mills, whether the involuntary unemployment brought on...
Raman and Raman (Private) Ltd., Kumbakonam Vs. the State of Madras, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad536
1. The third respondent had permits to ply eleven buses and the Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., permits for six buses on the Tanjore-Kumbakonam route, a distance of about 25 miles. The petitioner held permits to ply ten buses on the Kumbakonam-Kodavasal route, a distance of 12 miles. The Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., had permits for four buses on that route. Koradachery was seven miles further away from Kodavasal. Up to 1943 the petitioner plied buses on that route, but thereafter Kodavasal-Koradacheri was not treated as a separate route by itself.2. The petitioner applied in 1955 for the sanction of a route Kodavasal to Koradacheri and for the grant of a permit to him. The third respondent intervened and objected to that proposal. These proceedings have apparently not yet terminated.3. In January 1956 the third respondent applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, for the grant of a variation of the conditions of the permits of two of his buses, MDO 1081 and MDO 1100, to enable...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›