Chennai Court September 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.
Kuppanna Gounder and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ60
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in A.S. No. 79 of 1956, reversing the Decree and Order of the learned District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam in E.P. No. 1042 of 1956 in O.S. No. 73 of 1955.2. The facts are : The defendants, appellants, were the lessees under a lease-deed, dated for the year 1954-55 under the first plaintiff. On 19th April, 1955 the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff who claims to be a tenant under the first plaintiff instituted a suit O.S. No. 73 of 1955 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and from entering upon the land on the allegation that as per the lease deed dated 14th April, 1954 the defendants have surrendered possession on 12th February, 1955 and thereafter the first plaintiff has leased the land to the second plaintiff and that the d...
Arya Bhavan (By C.M. Sharma) Vs. Seetharaman (S.) (Madras City Hotel W ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ680Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a restaurant known as the Arya Bhavan, who has however since closed down his business. The dismissal of the Janardhana Bhatt in 1953 led to an industrial dispute between the petitioner and his workmen, and that dispute was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Madras. The tribunal grave its award on 27 January 1954 directing the reinstatement of the dismissed workman. On 25 February 1954 the petitioner preferred an appeal against the award to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. That appeal was eventually registered as appeal No. 88 of 1954.2. Even before the petitioner preferred an Appeal, the petitioner dismissed on 14 February 1954 the first respondent, Seetharaman, another of the petitioner's employees, for misconduct; the charge was that the first respondent was unpunctual in his attendance. In July 1954 the first respondent Applied to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate ...
N. Krishnaswami Iyengar Vs. N. Vedavalli Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ588
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. I entirely agree with the office that this petitioner must adopt the cause title of the common order passed by the lower Court and also implead the decree-holders as respondents as he has done. It does not seem to me to be necessary that in a revision petition filed against a common order giving rateable distribution to some of the decree-holders and witholding in the case of another, that the aggrieved party should file as many Revision Petitions as there are rateable decree-holders. In fact such a multiplicity of Civil Revision Petitions would cause confusion and prevent the aggrieved party from presenting a complete picture apart from the fact that no useful purpose would be served because the measure in which the revision petitioner would succeed would be the measure in which the other decree-holders would be proportionately deprived of the amounts distributed to them in rateable distribution.2. The reference of the office is answered accordingly....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›