Chennai Court September 1961 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.
Workers of N. Desai Gounder and Co. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)IILLJ133Mad
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This la an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by twelve employees of a firm of merchants in Coimbatore town called Desai Gounder & Co., against the receiver in charge of the business of Desai Gounder & Co., for a writ of certiorari in quash the order of the labour court, Coimbatore, dismissing Industrial Dispute No. 67 of 1958. The facts of the case are the following: Desal Gounder & Co., was a partnership, one partner of which filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, for dissolution of the firm. A preliminary decree for dissolution was passed on 3 April 1957, which directed dissolution of the firm as and from the date of the preliminary decree. In and by the preliminary decree, a receiver was appointed to carry out the directions in the decree which were mostly in the nature of winding up the business consequent upon the dissolution. The receiver, who took charge of the business, issued notices to the twelve employees conc...
Andalammal Vs. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad378
(1) The appeal is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, in which it is fairly clear that the trial court came to the correct conclusion in decreeing the suit as prayed for. The matter went up in appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge who allowed the appeal and reversed the decree, but whose ground therefor are extremely difficult to follow. Briefly stated, the facts are these. This suit property originally belonged to one Venkataswami Naidu, who is not a party to this suit, who sold it for Rs. 500 on 14-5-1951 to the defendant (respondent) on the same day the defendant executed a registered resale agreement Ex. A. 1, agreeing to reconvey the property for the same price of Rs. 500 within a period of six years therefrom to Venkataswami Naidu or his heirs. Venkataswami Naidu assigned this agreement to the plaintiff (appellant) on 25-1-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 500. As the learned Subordinate Judge himself points out, upon the authority of Narasinggerji Gyangerji v. P...
Khadar HussaIn Sahib (B.M.) Vs. Mohamed Sheriff and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)ILLJ361Mad
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the erstwhile owner of a bus for quashing two orders of the labour court, Madras, in two applications preferred by two workmen employed in a bus of the petitioner for retrenchment compensation. The applications before the labour court were preferred under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the compensation claimed included wages in lieu of the period of notice. The admitted facts are the following.2. The petitioner in these two writ petitions was the owner of MSZ 7485 for which a permit had been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, for its being used as a stage carriage. This bus together with the permit was sold by the petitioner to one Appandanatha Nainar on 5 October 1956. Respondent 1 to each of the petitions were the conductor and the checking inspector, respectively, employed by the petitioner In relation to the bus. It is alleged that on the sale of the bus these two workmen voluntarily gave up employment und...
Jagadesan and anr. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad174
(1) This reference raises a question regarding the binding nature of an execution sale under a mortgage decree over the interest of the sons in the mortgaged property; the debt secured not being personally enforceable against the father and not being of avyavaharika character. The question as framed and placed before us would appear to cover a mortgage decree on the basis of an avyavaharika debt as well. We have, therefore, though it necessary to recast the question which will be as follows :"Whether a sale of joint family property, held in execution of a decree in a suit instituted against the father alone on a mortgage executed by him the debt covered thereby not being avayavaharika but which, however, was contracted neither for discharging an antecedent debt of the father, nor for any necessity or benefit of the family and, in respect of which personal remedy against father had become barred by limitation, would be binding on the sons' interest in the mortgage property."We entertai...
B.M. Khadar HussaIn Sahib Vs. Mohamed Sheriff and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ172
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the erstwhile owner of a bus for quashing two orders of the Labour Court, Madras, in two applications preferred by two workmen employed in a bus of the petitioner for retrenchment compensation. The applications before the Labour Court were preferred under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the compensation claimed included wages in lieu of the period of notice. The admitted facts are the following.2. The petitioner in these two Writ Petitions was the owner of MSZ 7485 for which a permit had been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act for its being used as a stage carriage. This bus together with the permit was sold by the petitioner to one Appandanatha Nainar on 5th October, 1956. The first respondent to each of the petitions were the conductor and checking inspector respectively employed by the petitioner in relation to the bus. It is alleged that on the sale of the bus these two workmen voluntarily gave up emp...
P.T.C. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Dhanabaggyammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad429
(1 ) This is a Second, appeal instituted by the second defendant in a suit tried by the learned District Munsif of Vellore for recovery of Rs. 4100/- by the plaintiff Dhanabagyammal. The facts of that litigation were, very briefly stated, as follows. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit were brothers traders and money lenders by profession. Among their business it is alleged that they carried on a jaggery business under the name and, style of Chinnaswami Chettiar and Sons. According to the plaintiff, she deposited certain monies for investment in the business, and, on the date of the plaint Rs. 4111-14-10 was due; the plaintiff relinquished a small sum and limited her claim to Rs. 4100/-. One very important fact is that there was a suit for partition between these brothers (O. S. No. 57 of 1949 on the file of the sub Court) which ended in a compromise decree. I have examined this decree, and found that under the second clause thereof, the present appellant (second defendant) definitely under...
P.T.C. Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Dhanabagyammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ184
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is a Second Appeal instituted by the second defendant in a suit tried by the learned District Munsif of Vellore for recovery of Rs. 4,100 by the plaintiff Dhanabagyammal. The facts of that litigation were., very briefly stated, as follows. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit were brothers, traders and money-lenders by profession. Among their businesses it is alleged that they carried on a jaggery business under the name and style of Chinnaswami Chettiar & Sons. According to the plaintiff, she deposited certain monies for investment in the business, and, on the date of the plaint Rs. 4,111-14-10 was due; the plaintiff relinquished a small sum and limited her claim to Rs. 4,100. One very important fact is that there was a suit for partition between these brothers (O.S. No. 57 of 1949 on the file of the Sub-Court) which ended in a compromise decree. I have examined this decree, and found that under the second clause thereof, the present appellant (second defendant) d...
Thangavel Nadar Vs. Sudalaimada Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad431; (1962)2MLJ202
(1) This is an appeal by the first defendant in the trial Court, in a suit by two plaintiffs, for a declaration that the property encroached upon by the first defendant was part of a public street vesting in the second defendant panchayat board, and for a mandatory injunction, directing the removal of this obstruction. Very briefly stated, the first defendant (appellant) resisted this action on the following grounds. He claimed that be bad put up the masonry constructions only within the limits of his own property. Alternatively, he claimed that if there was an encroachment, a license would be granted to him by the officers of the panchayat board, and that the new construction did not cause any inconvenience to the Public or hindrance to traffic; in this view, the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit.(2) Both the courts below, found upon the merits, that the property in respect of which the suit was filed was undoubtedly part of the public street and not within the limits of the pr...
Madura Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: (1963)IMLJ73; [1962]13STC124(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The Board of Revenue, Madras, in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act acted suo molu and revised the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, on 28th November, 1952, in respect of the business turnover of the Madura Mills Co., Ltd. The mills have preferred this appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 25th August, 1958, challenging the decision against them on the ground, amongst others, that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction in having exercised the powers of revision beyond the period of limitation fixed under the Act.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be shortly stated. The Madura Mills Co., Ltd., are dealers in yarn, purchasing raw materials like cotton, staple fibre etc., manufacturing them into yarn and selling them. In the assessment year 1950-51 they returned a total turnover of Rs. 15,27,61,883-8-4 before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai. Th...
J.P. Hanumantha Rao Vs. N. Anantarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1961
Reported in: (1962)1MLJ441
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a premises in Madras, and the respondent is his tenant in that premises. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949 seeking to have fair rent fixed for the said premises. After an enquiry into the matter the Controller fixed the fair rent in a certain amount. The petitioner aggrieved by the said decision filed an appeal, H.R.A. No. 272 of 1959 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The respondent was duly served with notice of appeal and the appeal was posted for final hearing on 3rd November, 1959. The respondent failed to appear on that date before the appellate authority with the consequence that he was declared ex parte, and the appeal was allowed. On the next day, 4th November, 1959 the respondent filed an application, M.P. No. 2321 of 1959, before the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes at Madras, for setting aside the exparte ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »