Chennai Court June 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.010 seconds)C.P. Kasi thevar Vs. Chinniah Konar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad77; 1960CriLJ251; (1959)1MLJ534
(1) This is a revision filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in Crl. R. P. No. 29 of 1958.(2) The Circumstances under which this revision is filed are these: In C.C. No. 762 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirupattur, the petitioner herein, i.e., Kasi Thevar, was the third accused. The respondent herein, i.e., Chinniah Konar was examined as prosecution witness 4 in the case. On behalf of the petitioner P.W. 4 was cross-examined and in the cross-examination a suggestion was put namely whether P.W. 4 did not file a tender in Keelasevalpatti Panchayat Board and whether the tender of the third accused (Petitioner) was not accepted in preference to that of P.W.4 and whether P.W. 4 did not give a petition against accused 3 in that case and the executive officer. The witness denied all these suggestion and stated that he filed a tender in Keelasevalpati and that it was wrong to suggest that the tender of the third accused was accepted. He also added...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kasi thevar Vs. Chinniah Konar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ534
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, in Crl.R.P. No. 29 of 1958.2. The circumstances under which this revision is filed are these : In C.C. No. 762 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirupattur, the petitioner herein, i.e., Kasi Thevar, was the third accused. The respondent herein, i.e, Chinniah Konar was examined as prosecution witness 4 in the case. On behalf of the petitioner herein P.W. 4 was cross-examined and in the cross-examination a suggestion was put, namely, whether P.W. 4 did not file a tender in Keelasevalpatti Panchayat Board and whether the tender of the third accused (petitioner) was not accepted in preference to that of P.W. 4 and whether P.W. 4 did not give a petition against accused 3 in that case and the Executive Officer. The witness denied all these suggestions and stated that he filed a tender in Keelasevalpatti and that it was wrong to suggest that the tender of the third accuse...
Tag this Judgment!Workers Employed in United Bleachers (Private) Ltd., Mettupalayam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad131; (1959)IILLJ635Mad
ORDER(1) The United Bleachers (Private) Ltd., is a limited liability company the shares in which are held by six mills in the town of Coimbatore and its neighbourhood. On 8th October 1957, the Company dismissed one Krishnan who was in its employ as a Supervisor-cum-clerk. An industrial dispute about this was raised and in the order made on 10th March 1958 in I. D. No. 1 of 1958, the Labour Court, Coimbatore, directed that he should be reinstated. The award of the Labour Court was published in April 1958. On 10th April 1958 the Company intimated that the award could not be implemented as the post had been abolished.However, on 4th June 1958 in suppression of its previous letter the company asked Krishnan to report for work. Subsequently he was retrenched. On 22nd September 1958 a vacancy arose in the grade of supervisor-cum-clerk and in that vacancy the management appointed a man called Mohamed. On 23rd September 1958, Krishnan who was at the time the Secretary of the Coimbatore Distric...
Tag this Judgment!