Chennai Court August 1959 Judgments
Murugan Transport Vs. Its Workers and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1959
Reported in: (1960)ILLJ349Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In November 1956, the Murugan Transport, Cuddalore, dismissed six of its employees. The labour officer, Tiruchirappalli, initiated conciliation proceedings, but these failed. He reported the failure in a letter, dated 10 January 1957. Some time later, in January 1957, the management of the Murugan Transport dismissed a seventh employee and refused to take back an eighth who had overstayed his leave. The labour officer initiated conciliation proceedings in respect of these two workers also, but now too his efforts failed. He reported that in a letter, dated 27 March 1957. On 16 July 1957 the general body of the Motor Transport Workers' Union, Cuddalore, passed a resolution in certain general terms. They were to the effect that the requests of the employees of the Murugan Transports had been considered, that the requests should be forwarded to the management for consideration and that if the management failed to grant redress, notice of strike to take effect ...
Tag this Judgment!Meenammal Vs. S.N. Oavai Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad237
(1) The plaintiff's case was that she had advanced a loan of Rs. 320 to defendants 1 and 2, and that she subsequently on the same day obtained from them Ex. A. 1, which purported to be a promissory note for that amount. Ex. A. 1, however, could not be relied upon as a promissory note and admitted in evidence as such, because it was insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff therefore laid the suit on the original cause of action, the debt itself, independent of the promissory note. There were, however, endorsements of payment on Ex. A. 1, which were marked as Exs. A 2, A. 3 and A. 4. The plaintiff relied on these endorsements of payment to save the claim based on the original cause of action, from being barred by limitation.(2) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence, that the promissory note in question, Ex. A. 1, was executed as security for the debt subsequently on the date on which the advance of loan was made, and the learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarath Sayed Shamian Sakkab Kadiri Thaikkal, Represented by Its Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1959
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ475
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was the landlord who owned the sites which were let to the tenant, Ibrahim Sahib, whose legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 2 to 13. The vacant sites were leased to Ibrahim Sahib under two lease deeds, one in 1930 and the other in 1931. In 1950 the petitioner filed O.S. No. 315 of 1950 to eject the tenant Ibrahim from the sites in question and to recover possession of the sites as vacant sites. It should be remembered that Ibrahim had put up structures on the sites when he was the tenant. That suit ended in a compromise which was the basis of the decree dated 10th January, 1952. Clause 1 of the decree provided that Ibrahim should continue in possession as a tenant of the sites for a period of 12 years from 1st January, 1952, on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 60.Clause 2 ran:On the expiry of the period, i.e., on 31st December, 1963, the defendant do surrender possession of the said properties after removing the superstructure...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajan Vs. the Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Loca ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad238
ORDER(1) The Panchayat of Meesanallur in Wandiwash Taluk has been divided into two wards under the Madras Village panchayats Act of 1950. It was notified that nominations would be received on 19-6-1958 and that the elections would be held on 20-6-1958. On 19-6-1958, only three persons filed their nomination papers for the three seats in ward No. 1. They were therefore declared elected unopposed. For the second ward, four persons filed their nomination papers in the morning of 19-6-1958. But in the evening of the same day all of them withdrew their nominations.In consequence it was notified that fresh elections for the second ward would be held on the 16th and 17th July 1958, that nomination papers were to be filed on the 16th and that the election would be held on the 17th. However, on 16-7-1958 no person filed his nomination paper. Consequently, no election could take place the next day. On 26-7-1958, the Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards, North Arcot at Vellor...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the hindu, Madras Vs. Secretary Hindu Office and Nationa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1959
Reported in: AIR1961Mad107; [1961(2)FLR344]; (1960)ILLJ187Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In 1927, the Management of the 'Hindu' framed various rules defining some of the terms and conditions of service of their employees. One of these Was contained in Rule 45, which ran:'Every employee shall ordinarily retire fromservice on his completing the age of 58 years orthirty years of unbroken service, whichever isearlier.'When the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, came into force, the management submitted the rules they had drawn up for certification and on 4th May, 1949, the Labour Commissioner, who is the certifying officer under the Act, certified the rules and they became 'standing orders'. In 1957, the Management considered it desirable to make certain minor changes in these standing orders and applied for their modification in certain respects.The National Press Employees' Union took advantage of this occasion and moved the certifying officer to amend para 45 so as to read as follows:'Every employee shall retire on attaining the ...
Tag this Judgment!O.Rm.P.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1959
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ1
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. When the above matter was heard by us on receipt of the opinion of the Full Bench, the case for the appellant was presented to us in two aspects : (i) the jurisdiction of the lower Court to grant relief under Section 19(2) of the Act and (ii) the liability of the decree debt to be scaled down under its provisions. For appreciating the contentions urged, it is necessary to set out a few facts.2. As indicated in the judgment of the Full Bench, the decree was in respect of a claim for return of a deposit made by the appellant's father with the respondent's father. The deposit was made on 11th March, 1926, and was repayable on demand together with interest at the thavanai rate. A demand was made on 2nd October, 1944 and that not having been complied with, the suit was filed a few months thereafter. The respondent's case was that the transaction was a mere loan, and that the claim was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transaction a...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. A.P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1959
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ157
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. These appeals relate to Sri Dandayuthapaniswami temple at Ayyampalayam, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. It will be convenient to refer to the rank of the parties as mentioned in A.S. No. 63 of 1955. That appeal arises out of a suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1951 originally filed by the first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 who were impleaded as defendants to the suit were later transposed as plaintiffs 2 and 3. A.S. No. 131 of 1955 arises out of O.S. No. 8 of 1951 filed by the sixth respondent. The suits were filed under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927), to set aside a scheme framed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board in O.A. No. 513 of 1949 for the management of Sri Dandayuthapaniswami temple. The Board, who was the first defendant to the suit, is now represented by the appellant, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras. Appeal No. 132 of 1955 is filed against the order of the Lower Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Vegetable Oil Product Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1959
Reported in: (1961)IILLJ508Mad
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Mysore Vegetable Oil Products, Ltd., is the petitioner. In February 1938, N.R. Reddi, the respondent 2 joined the services of the petitioner as clerk at Bangalore, In 1942 he was transferred to Madras and he was working there as accountant till the end of February 1956. His duties during this period were mainly maintenance of general ledgers, journals, stores ledger and the preparation of drafts and letters in connexion with maintenance of his accounts. The branch manager was in sole charge of the factory as well as the office till the end of February 1956. In that month the company decided to close down the Vanaspathi section of the factory and to continue to work only the expeller section. As a result of that decision the company retrenched a number of workers and clerical staff. The regular manager of the Madras Branch was also retrenched. On 27 February 1956 the company passed an order which so far as it relates to N.R. Reddi is in these terms:--Con...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Velusami thevar Vs. S. Raja Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1959
Reported in: AIR1960Mad201
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli allowing election petition No. 109 of 1957, which had been referred to him for disposal. That was a petition filed by an elector in the Alangalam constituency seeking to set aside the election of N. T. Velusami Thevar who had been declared elected to that constituency in the election held to the Madras State Assembly in 1957. For the said seat six persons filed nomination papers. The nominations were scrutinised on 1-2-1957. The nominations of five of them were accepted but the nominations of the fourth, S. Arunachala, was rejected. Two of the five candidates whose nominations had been accepted withdrew from the contest and the other three went to the polls and Velusami Thevar was declared elected by a majority of votes.It is to set aside the election of the said Velusami Thevar that the petition out of which this appeal arises was filed. The sole ground on which the petition was founded was t...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohamad Abdul Kadir Rowther Vs. S. Muthiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1959
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ13
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1954 on the file of the Sub-Court of Dindigul. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8229-2-4 representing the balance due on account with subsequent interest thereon. The appellant was a partner in a business run under the name of 'Amar Jyothi Talkie Distributors, Dindigul'. It will be convenient to refer to that firm as the appellant's firm. That partnership was dissolved and under an agreement between the partners the appellant became solely entitled to the moneys due from the respondent. The respondent was doing business in the distribution of films under the name of 'Nethaji Picture Circuit' at Tiruchira-palli. They had acquired a right to the distribution of a Tamil film called ' Vikata-yogi' in the Madurai district. On 6th February, 1947, they assigned that right to the Amar Jyothi Talkie Distributors for a period of years. The terms of the assignment were embod...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »