Chennai Court November 1963 Judgments
Bar Council, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. K. Raghaviah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad488; 1964CriLJ558
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The respondent was enrolled as an Advocate of the Madras High Court on 31-7-1950. He was subsequently appointed as a Sub-Magistrate. When he was employed in that capacity, he is alleged to have committed certain acts amounting to misconduct on the part of a Government servant. In respect of such conduct disciplinary proceedings were taken in the Andhra Stats where he was doing the duties of a Sub-Magistrate. In the departmental enquiry that was held the charges were held to have been proved; he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the respondent wishing to resume practice as an Advocate intimated to the Bar Council of his intention. There was also a letter to the Registrar of this court from the respondent. That letter was duly communicated to the Bar Council which framed a number of charges, against the respondent which were-almost identical with the charges framed against him while holding the office of a Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Jammalmadugu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Director of Industries and Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad508
Venkataraman, J.1. This is a suit by the State of Madras against the defendant, M. A. S. Mehta, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,000, and odd, for sale of matches which were supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Under Ex. P-l dated 31-10-1957 a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant by which the defendant was constituted the sole selling agents in Chingleput district for the sale of matches manufactured at the Government Match Works at Perambur. The prices at which the goods were supplied by the match factory to the defendant were fixed and the defendant was free to put his own price on the goods when sold by him. Thus though the defendant was described as selling agent the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was not that of principal and agent, and the defendant was really a purchaser of the goods from the plaintiff.2. The contract provided for payment of the price to the plaintiff by the defendant within 15 days of the delivery of the...
Tag this Judgment!E.C.P. Rathinaswami Nadar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad255; [1964(8)FLR343]
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Labour Court, Madurai, holding that there was no retrenchment of the worker involved which would give him any rights under' the Industrial Disputes Act be quashed as erroneous In law.2. The petitioner was in the employ of the second respondent management,. He claimed by a petition Under Section 33-C that he was entitled to retrenchment compensation. The respondent management denied the claim con tending that there was no retrenchment at all but that the petitioner voluntarily stayed away. According to the evidence let in by the management, the petitioner had been in the employ of the management for over thirty years. He however did not choose to do the work in a particular capacity as accountant when duties of that nature was assigned to him. That is said to be the reason why he voluntarily stayed away. The question which the Labour Court had to consider was whether the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Kalloor Rayavaram Co-operative Milk Supply Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad301; 1964CriLJ39
Kailasam, J.1. This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the respondent (accused I) by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 16(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The respondent is the Kallur-Rayavaram Co-operative Milk Supply Society Ltd., Kallur-Rayavaram. Accused 2 was the secretary of the Society and accused 3 was the carrier of milk for the society. Accused x and a were acquitted, and accused 3 was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The appeal is preferred against the acquittal of accused I alone.2. The food inspector of Karaikudi Municipality stopped accused 3 at about 10 a. m. on 14-9-1962, who was carrying a tin can, and enquired him. He stated that he had cow's mill! belonging to Kallur Rayaravam Milk Supply Co-operative Society and that he was taking it for delivery to the Karaikudi Co-operative Society for sale. The milk can was locked. P. W. 1, the food inspec...
Tag this Judgment!James Devadasan Pakkiam and anr. Vs. O. Vr. Sv. Ar. Arunachalam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad192
(1) This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O. S. No. 39 of 1959 impounding a document dated 7-1-1951 holding it to be a conveyance and as such liable to a stamp duty of Rs. 990, and a penalty of ten times that amount, and, forwarding the same to the collector for appropriate action for the collection of the duty.(2) By two deeds dated 27-7-1948 and 5-7-1949 defendants 1 and 2 created two mortgages over eight items of properties. The mortgages were simple. The mortgagors defaulted in the regular payment of the interest. Thereupon both the debtors and the creditors entered into an arrangement to see that the claim under the mortgages did not get swollen. An agreement was entered into on 7-1-1951, under which the mortgagors handed over to the mortgagee the properties so that the income therefrom might be received by the mortgagee, and, after deduction the expenses of collection and paying sum of Rs. 200, for the subsisten...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Ramachandram Pillai Vs. K.R.M.K.M. Kumarappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad362
Venkatadri, J.1. This is a revision preferred by the third defendant against the decree passed against him in S.C.S. No, 668 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukottai, filed by the first respondent for damages caused to the first respondent's Plymouth Car by a lorry belonging to the first and third defendants.2. The short facts in this case are the following: Defendants 1 and 3 are brothers. They own a motor lorry bearing No. MDY. 2477. The lorry is registered In the name of the third: defendant. On 10-2-1959, the first respondent had parked his Plymouth car MDC 7783 at Kulipirai to the south of P. R. R. M.SP. Chettiar's house on the left side margin of the Kulipirai-Ponamaravathi road, The car was parked in such a way as not to be a hindrance to the traffic and there was plenty of space on the right side of the car for the lorry to pass. The second defendant who was driving the lorry In the course of his employment under defendants 1 and 3 drove the lorry in a rash ...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavel Chettiar and anr. Vs. Kuppu Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad386
Veeraswami, J.1. On 17th April 1953, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell to the latter a piece of immoveable property. Ignoring the agreement) the first defendant sold the property on 4th June 1953 to the second defendant, who, in his turn, sold it on 2nd October 1955 to the third defendant. The third defendant too, in turn, sold the property to the fourth and fifth defendants, who are the appellants in this court. The first respondent, who was the plaintiff, brought the suit' originally against the first defendant for specific performance of the agreement. Pending the suit the first defendant died. Or coming to know that the first defendant had sold the property to the second defendant, the first respondent got the second defendant impleaded as a party to the suit. This was within three years of the date of the agreement. The second defendant too died pending the suit and no legal representatives of the second defendant were brought on record. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. Gian Kaur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad379
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, directing the Receiver appointed Under Section 69-A of the Transfer of Property Act at the instance of the mortgagee to sell the property. I am unable to see under what authority the lower court passed the order it did. The Receiver in the instant case was appoints Under Section 69-A of the Act. By reason of such appointment, the receiver will be deemed to be the agent of the mortgagor and as such he will have the power to demand and recover all the income of which he is Receiver and such income that might be realised will accrue to the benefit of the mortgagee. But that does not mean that the Receiver can sell the property. There is in the present case a power of sale under the document vested in the mortgagee conformably to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act. But that power has to be exercised by the mortgagee and he has no right to app...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Madras Vs. Workmen of South India, Saiva Siddhanta Works ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad468; (1964)ILLJ228Mad
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. Muthiah Pillai. who was employed by the South India Saiva Sidhhanta Works Publishing Society at Tirunelveli, was dismissed from service on 10-12-1959 on the ground that he was responsible for an article that appeared in an issue of 'Indunesan' dated 24-10-1958 making certain allegations of malpractices committed by the directors of the society. No enquiry was held by the management to find out whether the employee was guilty of the conduct attributed to him and consequently there was no opportunity for the latter to show that the charge or suspicion against him was ill-founded. The Madras Press Labour Union, of which Muthiah Pillai was a member, took up 'as cause and it raised an industrial dispute.Conciliation proceedings which were initiated In consequence thereof, proved ineffective. The Labour Officer, who was entrusted with the conciliation work, while reporting his failure, intimated to the Government that the management was neither willing to reinstat...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dakshinamurthi Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1967Mad392
(1) This appeal is directed against the order of Veeraswami J. in W. P. 113 of 1960. The appellant, K. Dakshinamurthi, was employed as a police constable serving in the Special Armed Police. The departmental authorities framed the following charge against him:--"Conduct unbecoming of a police constable in having political leanings towards Drivada Munnetra Kazhagam party".The charge itself, as contained in a letter in Tamil dated 3-9-1957 addressed t o Sri Kannadasan, Editor, Thenral, Madras. The translation of the letter in Engl ish is this:--"Many regards. We are sorry to hear about the death of your mother. We regret m ust that she could not live longer to watch your patriotism any your popularity. We came to your office many times to express our condolences in person but coul d not, as you were not available. On Sunday last we came at 2-30 p.m. to your of fice but in vain. So we are expressing our condolences by means of this letter. We pray God to bless her soul.sd.S. A. P. Comard...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »