Chennai Court April 1964 Judgments
Sundarajan (A.R.) Vs. A.P. Challiappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1964
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ564Mad
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The order sought to be quashed was made Under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 1 was employed as a conductor from 10 February 1951 to 20 July 1961 on a basic wage of Rs. 45 and dearness allowance of Rs. 29 per mensem in the transport business of a firm of partnership with the name and style of Sundaram Transports, sivakasi. On 3 January 1961, there was a dissolution of the partnership and the assets and liabilities were divided between the two partner, one of them being the petitioner. It appears that the buses were apportioned between the two partners and with them also the staff. On that basis respondent 1 happened to be allotted to the other partner. Respondent 1 applied to the labour court, Madurai, for determination of his retrenchment compensation on the footing that the dissolution of the partnership involved a change of ownership or of management of the undertaking. The labour court does not appear to have addressed itself to t...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Aiyathurai Chettiar and anr. Vs. Municipal Council, Kumbakonam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad519
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) The plaintiffs in O. S. 20 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam, have filed this appeal against the decree therein dismissing their suit for a declaration of their title to the properties in suit and for recovery of possession of the same. The claim was made on the basis that the plaintiffs were the reversioners to the estate of their paternal uncle Ranganathan Chettiar, to whom, they stated they succeeded on the death of his widow, Bagirathi on 21-3-1959. The father of the plaintiffs, Chakrapani Chettiar and Ranganathan Chettiar were brothers. The latter was employed at Jaffna in Ceylon. They effected a partition of their family properties in 19-10-1913. Under the partition Ranganathan Chettiar was allotted, besides other properties, two houses to the west of the house allotted to his brother, the eastern one among them being his residential house. On 9-10-1916 Ranganathan Chettiar executed a will, the truth and genuineness of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Venkatammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad193
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) This is an appeal under Cl. 15 Letters Patent against the judgment of Veeraswami J. who set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had reversed the decree for possession granted by the trial court in favour of the first respondent, Venkatammal. Her husband, Alagarsami Chettiar, and their son, Subbiah Chettiar, were members of a joint Hindu family which owned some properties. The husband and wife did not pull on well together. The latter had evidently the sympathy of her son. Early in the year 1947, Alagarsami Chettiar and his son Subbiah, at the instance of certain mediators, entered into a partition arrangement. Though old, Alagarsami Chettiar appears to have entertained an idea of taking a second wife, and, perhaps, he even had hopes of children being born to that wife. The partition agreement is dated 7-4-1947 and is evidenced by Ex. A. 1. Under that arrangement, Subbiah undertook the liability of maintaining his mother.(2) Alagarsami Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Gunna J. Krishnan and ors. Vs. G.K. Rengachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad340
Ramamurti, J.(1) The appeal arises out of a suit, O. S. No. 176 of 1954, Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, filed by the first respondent herein, for partition and separate possession of his one-ninth share, after taking an account of the properties, cash, business assets, bank deposits, jewellery, moveable etc. The plaintiff's suit has been substantially decreed as prayed for by him, and the plaintiff's father, the first defendant in the suit, the latter's wife, the 2nd defendant, and their son (the plaintiff's step brother), the third defendant, are the appellants in the present appeal. In order to appreciate the relationship between the parties, the following genealogical tree is set out.The case of the plaintiff, who is the son of the first defendant through his first wife is that after the death of the plaintiff's grandfather, Guna Jeer Bhagavathar in 1901 his four sons, i.e., the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's three uncles, were under the guardianship and protection of their moth...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mohammed Zacheria and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC1049(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a tanner. He took out a licence for the assessment year 1954-55 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. For that year, the net turnover was assessed at Rs. 70,871-6-0 and the assessment was completed on that basis on 30th March, 1960. In making the assessment, the assessing authority followed the judgment of this Court in Noor Mohammed and Co. v. State of Madras [1956] 7 S.T.C. The decision of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. M. A. Noor Mohammed and Co. : [1961]1SCR148 . As a result of this decision, a dealer who had not taken out a licence or having taken out a licence had failed to fulfil the conditions laid down therein became liable to tax at all points of sale and the benefit of the single point taxation was denied to him. The Commercial Tax Authorities thereafter took up the assessment of this assessee in revision. Since the petitioner had obtained a licence only on 29th May, 1954, and not from the commence...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Bayee and anr. Vs. P.G. Krishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad191
(1) Defendants 1 and 2 are appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of A and B schedule properties from the first defendants, vacant possession of C schedule property from the second defendant and possession of D schedule property from the third defendant. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of one Govinda Rao. The adoption was alleged to have taken place on 10-4-44. It was Govinda Rao, he would be the nearest reversioner to Jeeva Bayee alias Seetha Bayee who died on 23-5-1955. Jeeva Bayee, during her lifetime, effected alienation's. One was in favour of the second defendant under Ex. B. 15 dated 7-6-1948. She also gifted a certain item under Ex. B. 5 dated 14-7-1923 to the first defendant's ancestor. The aliens of Jeeva Bayee resisted the suit on the ground that the adoption was not validly made, and that the necessary formalities for valid adoption were not gone through. The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the adoption, and that even...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vaithilingam Chettiar Vs. S.N. Lakshmana Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad331
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Kunhamed Kutti J. on the strength of certificate issued under Cl. 15 Letters Patent. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted to set aside a summary order in proceedings relating to the delivery of possession of property sold by an Official Receiver. The property in question is a house in Nagapattinam. It was purchased in the year 1910 by Muthukumaraswami Chettiar, who died 8 years later, leaving behind him two sons, Vaidyalinga, the appellant, and Ramalinga. The former was employed in the railways and his duties compelled him to lie in different places. His brother Ramalinga, who was a stamp-vendor, was in actual occupation of the house. In the year 1948 he was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition. The Official Receiver of East Tanjore conveyed on 12-12-1952 the right title and interest for the insolvent in the house of the respondent. It appears that even earlier the Official Receiver had taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppu Udayar Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad310; [1965(11)FLR318]; (1966)IILLJ905Mad
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) This is an appeal against the judgment of Veeraswami J. rejecting the application filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, dismissing him from service. The appellant was a permanent karnam of Kamakkapalayam village in Athur Taluk in Salem District. On receipt of complaints against him, certain charges were framed by the Revenue divisional Officer, Namakkal, and after an enquiry he was dismissed from service. That order formed the subject matter of W. P. 8 of 1954 in this court. It was found that inasmuch as a second opportunity was not given to the appellant, the order of dismissal was illegal. There upon, the Revenue Divisional Officer reinstated the appellant and recommenced the inquiry in regard to the original charges. Four witnesses were examined in support of the charges. Shortly thereafter, Athur Taluk came under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Divisional Officer Salem....
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Sambaing Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad31; 1965CriLJ53
(1) The matter that arises for consideration in these appeals filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused is whether it is appropriate to apply S. 251-A (11) Cri. P. C. and acquit the accused in case where the prosecution has neglected to produce witnesses in support of the prosecution case as required under s. 251-A (7) Cr. P. C. The learned Additional First Class magistrate, Kulitalai, who tried the case, observed in his judgment that notwithstanding the peremptory order issued by the court declining to grant further adjournments, the prosecution was not ready with its evidence on the date of hearing and that therefore the accused were entitled to an acquittal under S. 251-A (11), Cr. P. C.The learned Public Prosecutor, who has appealed to this court, against the order of acquittal, for want of diligence on the part of prosecution, in the matter of producing its witnesses is permissible in summons cases, under s. 247 Cr. P. C. as has been out in A. Reddi v. S. Goundan, 19...
Tag this Judgment!G. Appaswamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. R. Sarangapani Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad197
Venkatadri, J.(1) This is an application by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, Appasami Chettiar and Gopalasami Chettiar, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgment and decree of a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, dated, 21st September, 1962, reversing the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam by which he had decreed the plaintiff's suit.(2) The dispute between the parties, in substance and effect, relates to the right to succeed to the estate of the deceased Gopalaswamy Chettiar. The plaintiffs filed a suit (1) for a declaration that the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant in the suit was not true and valid; (2) for a declaration that, in any event, the second defendant, as such adopted son, could not take the estate of Gopalaswamy Chettiar either under the will of Gopalaswamy Chettiar or by way of succession as an intestacy after the lifetime of the first defen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »