Chennai Court January 1966 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.
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Madras Vs. Mysore Premier Metal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1966Mad380; (1966)IILLJ10Mad; (1966)2MLJ2
ORDER(1) This appeal arises out of an order passed by the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court Madras, on an application filed by the Appellant, Employees State Insurance Corporation, for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 1061-62 by the respondent herein, Messrs. Mysore Premier Metal Factory. The learned Assistant Judge, dismissed the application on the ground that it was due to the negligence on the part of the employee that the accident occurred and that as such the employer, respondent, was not liable to pay any sum or to contribute any amount paid by the appellant herein. Hence this appeal.(2) The respondent is carrying on business as manufacturer of aluminium sheets and circles, and aluminium brass and stainless steel and utensils. One Murugesan was involved in an accident while operating a machine which is used to cut aluminium spoons. As a result of the accident, the said Murugesan's left index-finger was jammed. He was an insured person. The Medical Board certified that he has b...
Unique Motor and Insurance Company Vs. Gnanambigai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1966
Reported in: [1966]36CompCas601(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Unique Motor and Insurance Company, the second respondent in the claim petition, O.P. No. 15 of 1962, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), South Arcot, at Cuddalore, against the award of compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent herein whose son died as a result of an accident caused by the lorry of the second respondent herein and which lorry has been insured with the appellant herein. As the award of compensation was directed to be paid both by the owner of the lorry and the insurance company, the insurance company has filed this appeal against that decision of the Tribunal below.2. The insurance company contend that they are entitled to avoid the policy, inasmuch as the policy had been obtained by the owner of the vehicle by the non-disclosure of a material fact. The policy extended to cover third party risk. The policy was renewed on August 29, 1960, for a period of one yea...
Mohammad Habibullah Sahib and ors. Vs. Special Deputy Collector for La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad118
Venkatadri, J. (1) These writ appeals are directed against the judgment of Srinivasan J. which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants to quash the notifications and declarations in respect of their lands acquired by the State of Madras, in connection with the housing schemes in the City of Madras.(2) The appellants are the owners of the lands bearing S. No. 2/1 of an extent of 11.26 acres, S. No. 3/1 of an extent of 6.91 acres and S. No. 4 of an extent of 13.37 acres in Kalikundram village within the Corporation limits of the City of Madras. The entire extent of land has been enclosed by a fence, and is alleged to be used and treated as a compact block. The Government of Madras, in pursuance of the housing scheme to meet the serious problem of acute housing shortage in the City, have been acquiring lands in and around the villages of Urur and Kalikundram. Thus, in the course of their acquisition, the Government proposed to acquire the lands belonging to the appellants. Th...
Tamizhazhagan and anr. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ194
M. Natesan, J.1. These two cases raise certain interesting and important questions, particularly the competency of the State Legislature to enact Madras Act XIV of 1957, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and whether Section 5 of the Act is invalid as violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (1)(f) of the Constitution. A further question for consideration and one of some difficulty is, whether a conviction under Section 5 of the Act for burning a copy of the Constitution taints a candidate for election as a member of a Panchayat under Madras Act XXXV of 1958 with moral delinquency, and under Section 25(1) of the Panchayat Act disqualifies him for election. Another plea is raised that the disqualification as imposed under Section 25(1) is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.2. We shall first briefly set out the facts in the two cases. W.A. No. 260 of 1965 arises out of the election hel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›