Chennai Court July 1960 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.
Angarauthu Chettiar Vs. Muthayya Naidu Alias Natesa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ596
Srinivasan, J.1. The appellant had obtained a decree for possession of immoveable property on 9th November, 1953. It would appear that the judgment-debtor had executed an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the appellant but had failed to place him in possession of the property. The suit was laid by the appellant for recovery of possession on the footing of the usufructuary mortgage in his favour. A decree followed both for possession and for mesne profits. The execution petition, which has led to the appeal, was filed on 20th November, 1957. It was clearly beyond three years from the date of the decree, arid to the objection raised on the administrative side of the District Munsif's Court, an endorsement was made on the execution petition, setting up Ordinance V of 1953, Act V of 1.954 an(iAct I f I955j as saving the bar of limitation. The question that arose, therefore, was whether the bar of limitation was overcome by one or other or both the enactments.2. The learned District Munsif...
The Management of the Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad305; [1961(3)FLR233]; (1960)IILLJ678Mad; (1960)IILLJ678Mad
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. By G. O. Ms. No. 687, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 17-2-1958, the Government of Madras, referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, an industrial dispute between the workers and management of the Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., in regard to the question whether the dismissal of one Subbiah was justified, and to what relief he was entitled.2. The facts that led to the reference were these. At about 8 a.m. on 14-8-1955, Venkatapathy, the Assistant Welfare Officer of the Radhakrishna Mills Limited, was waylaid, be laboured, and a number of injuries were inflicted on him by lethal weapons. The injured man was immediately taken to the hospital, where he gave a dying declaration. In the dying declaration he mentioned that Subbiah was one of the persons who had assaulted him. Venkatapathi, however, got well, though it is stated that some time afterwards he was murdered by some other person.Subbiah was arrested on 14-8-1955. In du...
R. Kapanipathi Rao Vs. T. Balakrishna Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ381
Srinivasan, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30th April, 1959, made by the Court of Small Causes, Madras, which appears to have been passed under Section 7-A (4) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. There was a petition filed before the Rent Controller for the eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent and also on the ground of material alteration of premises. The petititon seems to have been allowed and the matter was taken up in appeal to the Court of Small Causes at Madras. In the meantime, the petitioner appears to have filed an application for the fixation of fair rent. The Controller fixed this fair rent at Rs. 225 per month as against the previous rent of Rs. 300 and this order was passed on 15th April, 1959. It is said that a revision is pending before this Court against that order. I am not at present concerned with it.2. During the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, it...
In Re: Chandrasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad76; (1960)IILLJ569Mad; (1960)IILLJ569Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This revision petitioner was convicted of an offence under Clauses 1 and 7 of Rule 16 read with Rule 18 of the Rules framed under Section 49 (1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (XXXVI of 1947), and sentenced to a fine. The matter comes before us on a reference by Ramaswami J. who felt that an important point was involved, namely, whether the small unit set up by the lorry company in this case for the servicing of their vehicles could be properly designated as a 'shop' or 'commercial establishment' within the ambit of the Act. 2. We might immediately set forth here the definition of 'shop' occurring in Section 2(16) of the Act, which is as follows:- ' 'shop' means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers, and includes offices, store rooms, godowns, or warehouses whether in the same premises or otherwise, used in connection with such business but does not include a restaurant, eating house or comme...
Sri Chinnamuthu Kandar Vs. Ganapathi Pillai Alias Babu Raja Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ370
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order for eviction, passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, in C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956.2. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondent-landlord applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Namakkal, in C.T.P.A. No. 21 of 1956, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he defaulted in the payment of rent. The petition came up for hearing on 6th August, 1956, when the parties entered into a compromise. The arrears of rent due to the respondent from 30th August, 1955 to 6th August, 1956, were ascertained, and, after remitting a portion thereof, the parties agreed that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 1,050 in two instalments of Rs. 500 and Rs. 550 on or before 6th September, 1956 and 6th October, 1956, respectively. There were also other terms to the compromise. Those terms recorded an agreement between the parties, by which the tenant was to be in possession of the land for a further period...
Ramayya Nandiar and anr. Vs. Sri Swaminathaswami Devasthanam, by Execu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ376
Veeraswami, J.1. The question in the second appeal is whether it is not open to the civil Court to examine whether an order made under Section 29(1) of Madras Act (XIX of 1951) is not in conformity with the requirements prescribed in it. Disagreeing with the trial Court, the lower appellate Court held that there was no such jurisdiction in the civil Court and in that view allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiffs have filed the second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs as persons interested for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant temple from selling the suit lands. The suit lands are of an extent of one acre and 42 cents which were endowed by one Raghava Nandiar by a trust deed, dated 23rd November, 1914, for the performance of abishe-kam to Sri Swaminathaswami deity on the occasion of Skandasashti in the month of Arpasi each year at a cost of Rs. 5 and for feeding of one paradesi every day on a scale of half a Madras measure of rice. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›