Chennai Court October 1963 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.
M.R. Appadurai Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workman's Compensation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad265; (1964)ILLJ704Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the employer. He employed the second respondent as an offset printer. Towards the end of May 1960 after having been in the service of the petitioner for about nine months, the second respondent asked to be relieved from service at once, that is to say with effect from 1st June 1980. The petitioner did not accept the resignation but nevertheless the second respondent stopped away from service on the following day. Thereafter the second respondent moved the appropriate authority for payment of the wages for the month of May 1960.2. Before this authority the petitioner contended that under the Standing Orders governing the contract of service the second respondent was bound to give him fourteen days' notice and that his failure to do so should disentitle him to wages for that period. The Additional commissioner for Workmen's Compensation however took the view that though Standing order 18 required giving of days notice, it did not in terms state tha...
Dr. T.C.M. Pillai Vs. the Indian Institute of Technology by Its Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ70
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The Institute of Technology Act, 1961 (LIX of 1961), came into force on the 1st April, 1962. This Act purported to declare certain institutes of technology to be institutions of national importance and provided for certain matters connected with such institutions. One of such institutions declared to be of national importance is the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. The Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, was prior to this Act a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. From the commencement of this Act the Society came to be governed by the provisions of this Act. The Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Institute, became by virtue of this Act a body corporate, having perpetual succession. It consisting of Chairman, a Director and other Members of the Board. Section 6 of the Act conferred powers upon the Institute generally to provide for instructions and research in engineering technology, to hold examinat...
In Re: S.P. Rangasami Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ98
ORDERP. Kunhamad Kutti, J.1. This case arises out of a reference made by the district Magistrate (Judicial) Salem and notice of this reference was directed to be given to both the Public Prosecutor and the accused. The accused does not appear. I need only detail the facts of the case to show that the order passed by the learned-Special First Class Magistrate, Shevapet, Salem, is untenable.2. The Executive Authority of the Salem Municipality laid a complaint against the two accused, Rangasami Gounder and S. Komarasami Chetty, for offences punishable under Sections 218 and 313 of the Madras District Municipalities Act for not having complied with a direction of the Municipalities to demolish a terraced building which was in a dangerous condition. This case was filed before the Speical First Class Magistrate, Shevapet, Salem, as S.T.R. No. 290 of 1962 and the same was posted for appearance of the accused to 9th February, 1962. On this date a representative of one of the accused appeared b...
S.V. Venkatasubbu and ors. Vs. Utilities (India) Ltd., in Voluntary Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad230
Jagadisan, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 216 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The decree has been passed against the appellants, defendants in the suit, for payment of a sum of Rs. 19,585.23 nP. to the plaintiff-respondent, which is a company under voluntary liquidation. The correctness of this decree is called in question by the appellants, mainly on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.2. The facts are these. The Utilities (India) Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, which will be referred to in this judgment as the company, was managed by a certain Venkatesalu Naidu. The defendants are his sons. The company did not function properly, and consequently, the members (share-holders) passed a special resolution in the General Body meeting held on 24-8-1955, that the company be wound up voluntarily. One of the directors, R. T. Naidu, was appointed as the liquidator. The Managing Director, Venkatesalu Naidu had i...
S.V. Venkatasubbu and ors. Vs. the Utilities (India), Limited in Volun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ20
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. This appeal is from the judgment and decree in Original Suit No. 216 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore. The decree has been passed against the appellants, defendants in the suit, for payment of a sum of Rs. 19,585-23 nP. to the plaintiff-respondent, which is a company under voluntary liquidation. The correctness of this decree is called in question by the appellants mainly on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.2. The facts are these. The Utilities (India), Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, which will be referred to in this judgment as the Company was managed by a certain Venkatesalu Naidu. The defendants are his sons. The Company did not function properly, and consequently the members (share-holders) passed a special resolution in the General Body meeting held on 24th August 1955 that the company be wound up voluntarily. One of the directors, R. T Naidu was appointed as the liquidator The Managing Director, Venka...
R. Subramaniam Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad185; 1964CriLJ519
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code to call for the warrant issued in S. T. 336 of 1960 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, which was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for execution and for return of the same to the Court of issue. The petitioner alleged that he was convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Kerala Sales Tax Act for default of payment of sales tax by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The arrears of sales tax due, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was also directed to be collected as fine. A warrant was issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, addressed to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras for the purpose of endorsing the warrant under the provisions of Section 387 Criminal Procedure Code and for execution. The warrant was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and forwarded to the Commission...
Southern Roadways (P.), Ltd. Vs. Madurai Veeraswami Nadar (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ25
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Reference has become necessary on account of certain doubts felt in regard to the correctness of the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court--Rajamannar, C.J., Ramachandra Iyer (one of us) and Ganapatia Pillai, JJ., in S.C.P. No. 117 of 1959. It was held in that case that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution granting a writ of certiorari, the consequence of which was to revive and make available for fresh adjudication, the proceedings before the inferior Tribunal, was in the nature of a remand order which would not constitute a judgment or final order coming within Article 133 of the Constitution. In a still earlier case, namely, C. Dhanalakshmi v. I.T. Officer : (1957)2MLJ567 , it was even held that an order rejecting a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari would not amount to a judgment or final order, if the result of the judgment of the High Court in the writ proceedings did not have the effect of finally disposing of th...
V.K. Nataraja Gounder Vs. S.A. Bangaru Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad212
(1) The appellant challenges the order of the court below directing him to deposit into court 'cash security' of half of the suit claim without prejudice to his contentions. This order purports to have been passed under the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5, C. P. C. The propriety of this order is called in question now before me.(2) The appellant is the fourth defendant in the suit, O. S. No. 3618 of 1962, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit has been instituted by a certain Bangaru Reddiar, the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,600 alleged to be due under a promissory note executed by a firm called Bombay Films. The firm is the first defendant in the suit. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to be the partners of this firm. It is common ground that the fourth defendant is not the actual executant of the promissory note, but he has been impleaded on the footing that he is a partner liable to answer the suit claim said to have been incurred for and on behal...
Srinivasa Naicker and ors. Vs. Govindasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad201
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appellants are the defendants in a suit Instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvayaru for recovery of sums due upon a mortgage. There were several defences to the suit, which do not now concern us in the form in which they were originally raised, out we may note that, in the first appeal the learned District Judge, Tanjore, confirmed the decree of the learned district Munsif in favour of the plaintiff and in doing so, formulated three points as arising for determination in the appeal. The first was about the truth of the agreement put forward by the defendants as a defence to the action, to the effect that the plaintiff should make a further advance of Rs. 1500 and that there should then be, superseding the contract between the parties, a fresh mortgage. On this point both the Courts below have field against the truth of the alleged agreement and this is really no longer in controversy. The second point was whether the plaintiff, who was not put...
Southern Roadways (P.) Ltd. Vs. P. Methurai Veeraswami (Died) M. Dhana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad194
S. Ramachandra Iyer C.J.1. This reference has become necessary on account of certain doubts felt in regard to the correctness of the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court-Rajamannar C.J., Ramachandra Iyer (one of us) and Ganapatia Pillai JJ. in S.C.P. No. 117 of 1959(1960?) (Mad). It was held in that case that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution granting a writ of certiorari, the consequence of which was to revive and make available for fresh adjudication, the proceedings before the inferior Tribunal, was in the nature of a remand order which would not constitute a judgment or final order coming within Article 133 of the Constitution. In a still earlier case, namely, Dhanalakshmi Ammal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1958 Mad 151 it was even held that an order rejecting a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari would not amount to a judgment or final order, if the result of the judgment of the High Court in the writ proceedings did not have the effect of finall...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »