Chennai Court July 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 4 of about 37 results (0.014 seconds)The Management of Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad267; (1959)IILLJ786Mad
ORDER(1) On 31-3-1958 Mariappan a maistry employed by the Sree Ranga Vilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills reported to the manager that about 4-20 p. m. that day he asked one Chellappan why there was so much 'breakage in the machine' and that thereupon he was abused, beaten and kicked by some seven employees of the mills whom he named in his report. Immediately afterwards the management issued a notice suspending these employees with effect from 8-30 p.m. until further orders. On 1-4-1958 the management issued a notice to all these seven employees requiring them to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.They were further informed that they should submit their explanation in writing within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice and that in default it would be assumed that they had no explanation and appropriate action taken. On 2-4-1958 these employees wrote back denying the charges and praying that the order of suspension passed against them be vacated. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ483
ORDERBalakrishna Iyer, J.1. On 31st March, 1958, Mariappan, a maistry employed by the Sree Ranga Vilas Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills reported to the manager that about 4-20 P.M., that day he asked one Chellappan why there was so much 'breakage in the machine' and that thereupon he was abused, beaten and kicked by some seven employees of the Mills whom he named in his report. Immediately afterwards the management issued a notice suspending these employees with effect from 8-30 P.M. until further orders. On 1st April, 1958, the management issued a notice to all these seven employees requiring them to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. They were further informed that they should submit their explanation in writing within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice and that in default it would be assumed that they had no explanation and appropriate action taken. On 2nd April, 1958, these employees wrote back denying the charges and praying that the order o...
Tag this Judgment!Ahamed Rowther Vs. Bathumal Beevi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ37
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This appeal is against an order of remand passed by the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in A.S. No. 69 of 1955. The defendants were the appellants before the Subordinate Judge. They had appealed against a decree of the District Munsif who decreed redemption of an othi deed, dated 5th January, 1939, by one Sulaika Beevi to the first defendant. A gift by Sulaika Beevi was relied on by the defendant, as also a release by a son of Sulaika Beevi. Both these documents were produced before the District Munsif. But, as they were unstamped, the District Munsif insisted upon payment of stamp duty and penalty. Obviously, the appellants were not able to pay it within the time allowed by the District Munsif, and further time asked for was refused. But the District Munsif rendered a judgment on the merits after discussing the evidence. The appellants, after filing the appeal, filed I.A. No. 89 of 1956 under Order 41, Rule 27, for receiving additional evidence in appeal. The add...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Paramasivan Vs. Sevasami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ44
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The suit was laid for recovery of Rs. 492-14-0 due on a promissory note executed by the defendant on the 18th of April, 1949 in favour of the plaintiff's assignor. There was a payment of Rs. 10 towards interest on the 29th March, 1952. Thereafter, there were no payment. It is alleged in the plaint that though the suit was filed on 1st July, 1955, it was not barred, as the defendant was an agriculturist entitled to the benefit of Madras Act I of 1955. This Act extended the period within which suits for money should be filed against agriculturists by a period of four months. See Section 3. The question, therefore, is whether the defendant is a person who falls within the definition of 'agriculturist' contained in Section 2 of the Act. The learned District Munsif held that he did not fall under the definition, and that, therefore, the suit was no...
Tag this Judgment!S. Parameswaran Vs. S. Sarveswaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad260
ORDER(1). This is a revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff against the order of the lower court directing the petitioner to pay the court fee on Rs. 32,000 less the court fee already paid on the plaint.(2) The plaintiff filed a suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership from 1948 upto the date of the suit and to have the assets realised including therein the good-will, plant and machinery which according to him were wrongfully taken over by the defendants. In paragraph 22 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff estimated his share of the assets payable to him in the sum of Rs 8000. A court fee of Rs. 600 was paid under S. 36(1) of the Court-fees Act of 1955. There was also an undertaking to pay an additional court-fee after the ascertainment of the amount due by him.The first defendant contested the correctness of the valuation of the plaint. Issue 15 was raised as to the proper court-fee payable on the plaint. The learned Assistant City Civil Judge held that the p...
Tag this Judgment!Kanakasabai Pillai Vs. Muthayyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ418
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders in A.P. Nos. 3 to 6 of 1958 on the file of the Revenue Court, Kumbakonam. The landlord is the petitioner in all these petitions. The respective respondents in these petitions filed applications before the Conciliation Officer, Mayuram, alleging that they were pannaiyals under the petitioner who owned more than 6 2/3 acres of lands in Tanjore District, that the petitioner refused to give them the kalavadai due to them and that he improperly dismissed them from service, when they demanded kalavadai as per the terms of what is known as Mayuram agreement. The petitioner resisted the applications on the ground that he owned less than 6 2/3 acres of lands, that the respondents were never his pannaiyals but only causal labourers, and that in any event, he was not liable for the kalavadai claimed by respondents. The' Conciliation Officer accepted the case of the respondents and directed their reinstatement u...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Purayar Vs. V.S. Thiagaraja Mudaliar by His Power of Attorne ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ490
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. These Revision Petitions have been filed by the respondents tenants gainst the order of the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif), Tiruturaipundi, in F.R.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1958, confirming the fair rent fixed in respect of the lands held by them. The applications for fair rent were filed by the landlord before the Rent Court, Tiruvarur. They were resisted by the tenants substantially on three grounds; (1) that the lands were originally waste lands which were reclaimed and brought under cultivation by the terms on a tenure known as 'Pathukattu tenure' and that the respondents-tenants either as incidental to such tenure or otherwise were entitled to pay only the contract rent; (2) that fair rent could not be fixed in respect of a portion of the desmised property as it consisted of only coconut trees, but it could only be fixed in regard to that portion of the land which was utilised for cultivation of paddy crops, and (3) that the landlord was not entitled to a rent of...
Tag this Judgment!