Chennai Court February 1964 Judgments
K.S. Sundaramayyar Vs. K. Jagadeesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad85; (1965)1MLJ362
(1) The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract dated 31-1-1958 for the sale of a house, No. 17/25 Raja Street, Coimbatore, which belonged to the first respondent. The price settled was Rs. 23,750, of which Rs. 4000 was paid as advance on the date of the agreement. It was agreed that the sale was to be completed within a period of three months from the date of the agreement, the stipulation in that regard being:"The party of the first part (first respondent) shall execute and have the sale deed registered within a period of three months from this day. The said period of three months cannot be extended for any reason whatsoever, save by the consent in writing by both the parties."But nothing, however, happened within the period aforesaid. On 30-4-1958, the last day specified for the performance of the contract, the first respondent sent a telegram to the appellant 'House sale agreement date expires today. Finish sale deed t...
Tag this Judgment!Rupchand Fomra and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad449; 1964CriLJ437
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. All these revision cases are by one or the other member of the Fomora family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.2. The several petitioners purchased motor cars in their individual names and hired them to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. for stated periods stipulating a fixed monthly rent. The cars were to be used in public places; but neither . permits nor fitness certificates had been obtained for any of them. Each of the petitioners was, therefore, charged firstly tinder ejection 38(1) and secondly Under Section 42(1) both read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. Under Section 33(1), no transport vehicle could be deemed to be validly registered unless it carried a certificate of fitness in form (H) as set forth in the first schedule to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Ch. (v) and the rules m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rupchand Fomra and 7 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ365
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. All these Revision Cases are by one or the other member of the Fomra Family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a common order.2. The several petitioners purchased motor cars in their individual names and hired them to the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company for stated periods stipulating a fixed monthly rent. The cars were to be used in public places; but neither permits nor fitness certificates had been obtained for any of them. Each of the petitioners was, therefore, charged firstly under Section 38(1) and secondly under Section 42(1) both read with Section 112, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.3. Under Section 38(1) no transport vehicle could be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness in Form-H as set forth in the First Schedule to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of Chapter V and the Rules made t...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Gandhiban Bus Service, Chingleput Vs. Presiding Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad292; (1964)ILLJ709Mad
ORDER(1) These writ petitions arise out of the order of the Labour Court, Madras, in these circumstances. The workers under two managements, the management of Sri Gandhiban bus Service, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 411 of 1963, and the workers under the management of Sri Shanmughananda Bus Service, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1963, filed applications under the Minimum Wages Act, seeking directions by the Labour Court for the payment of the difference in the wages payable to the workers in each of these petitions. As there was a delay in the filing of the petitions, applications for the condonation of the delay were also filed. Thirty-five workers are involved in the first of the cases, and the claim against the petitioner in writ Petition No. 411 of 1963 runs to Rs. 2,63,260 and old and in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1963, the claim is to the extent of Rs. 1,21,755 in respect of twenty employees. It was alleged by the workers that the managements in question had file...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan Reddiar Vs. Venkatesan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1964Mad476
Venkatadri, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an action by the first respondent herein against the owner of a bus, the first defendant and the conductor of the bus, the second defendant, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 303-37, being the value of a bag of betel-nuts which was lost by the negligence of the first defendant and his servant, while he was travelling in his bus from Panruti to Tirukoilur. It is in record that the first respondent herein paid extra charges for his luggage to be carried to his destination. The luggage was handed oven' to the conductor who stowed it on the top of the bus. On arriving at the destination, the first respondent found' his baggage missing and immediately reported it to the conductor, and afterwards also to the owner of the bus. The defendants attempted to trace the baggage, but subsequently they disowned their liability. According to them, it was the duty of the passenger to take care of his luggage, and it was due to his carelessness and ne...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Vadivelu Mudaliar and ors. Vs. N.S. Rajabada Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad175
(1) These appeals arise from the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai J and they involve the interpretation of a Trust deed dated 1-1-1908, executed by one Subha Daivanayaka Mudaliar. The settlor died in the year 1909, his only son Deiva Subbaraya Mudaliar having predeceased him 17 years earlier. The widow of the latter had even during the lifetime of her father-in-law adopted one Sarvana Mudaliar. There was a partition of the family properties between Subba Daivanayaka and his adopted grandson Saravana That transaction is evidenced by a document dated 25-11-1907. Under that partition the property involved in the present litigation a house in Mint Street, Madras, which was then burdened with a mortgage liability for Rs. 3000 was allotted to the share of Subba Daivanayaka. He created a trust over that property for the purposes to be presently mentioned. The trust deed is in Tamil. It discloses the settlor's intention to divest himself of the property for the purposes mentioned in the document....
Tag this Judgment!Maimunnissa Bibi and ors. Vs. M.S.N.N. Abudul Jabbar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad468
(1) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellants to set aside a sale dated 2-10-1956 of a piece of immoveable property belonging to them, executed by them in favour of the respondents for a consideration of Rs. 500. The property admittedly belonged to the first plaintiff's husband. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are his sons of whom plaintiffs 3 and 4 were then minors. There belonged to the Muslim community. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 were in the conveyance, represented by their mother as their guardian. The plaintiffs asked for cancellation of the sale on the ground that the mother as a de facto guardian of plaintiffs 3 and 4 had no right to make a conveyance of immoveable property on their behalf and that such a conveyance was void. The trial court accepted this contention and set aside the sale but directed the plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs. 500 to the defendants as a condition to their getting back possession of the property. The defendants appealed against that jud...
Tag this Judgment!Deivasenathipathi Pillai Vs. Visalakshi Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad346; (1965)1MLJ131
(1) This appeal from the judgment of Anantnarayanan J. relates to a claim to the estate left by one Balakrishna Pillai, a successful lawyer who was practising at Ariyalur in Tiruchirapalli Dt. He died on 6-4-1893, leaving behind him his two windows, Meenakshi Achi and Sornathachi. By the latter, he had a daughter Visalakshi Achi who was a child aged 3 years at the time of his death. Visalakshi came of age and was married but no issue resulted from that marriage. Meenakshi, of the windows, died about the year 1917. Visalakshi, the first respondent became insane and in O. P. 69 of 1944, on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli, the second respondent to this appeal was appointed as her guardian. The appellant claims that he had been adopted by Swarnathachi on 14-9-42, in pursuance of an authority given to her by her husband. The adoption is evidenced by a document, Ex A. l, which bears the same date as the adoption. Within a period of four months thereform, on 29-12-1942, Swarna...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›