Chennai Court December 1966 Judgments
Ramiah (V.) Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ424Mad
M. Ananthanarayanan, C.J.1. The appellant, V. Ramiah, was employed as a cashier in the State Bank of India, Madras. Aftera prolonged enquiry, upon charges framed, the local board of the bank, by proceedings dated 23 February 1962, intimated to the appellant that they were terminating his services under Rule 14 of the State Bank of India (Sub-Accountants and Head Cashiers) Service Rules, after tendering him two months' salary, in lies of notice, as provided for in Clause 1 of the Service Agreement. The appellant instituted Writ Petition No. 528 of 1962, before Veeraswami, J., for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing this order upon the grounds shown. In a judgment, in which the respective contentions of parties have been elaborately dealt with the learned Judge held that no case has been made out for interference with this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant has appealed from this judgment.2. The arguments presented before us by the learned Advocate-General ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramiah Vs. the State Bank of India by Its Secretary and Treasurer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ519
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The appellant. V. Ramiah, was employed as a Cashier in the State Bank of India, Madras. After a prolonged enquiry upon charges framed, the Local Board of the Bank, by Proceedings dated 23rd February, 1962, intimated to the appellant that they were terminating his services under Rule No. 14 of the State Bank of India (Sub-Accountants and Head Cashiers Service Rules), after tendering him two months' salary, in lieu of notice, as provided for in Clause (1) of the Service Agreement. The appellant instituted W.P. No. 528 of 1962, before Veeraswami, J., for the issue of a writ of ceitiorari quashing this order upon the grounds shown. In a judgment, in which the respective contentions, of parties have been elaborately dealt with, the learned Judge held that no case has been made out for interference with this order, under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant has appealed from this judgment.2. The arguments, presented before us by the learned Advocate-...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. Kavalmari Munuswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad451
(1) The plaintiff is the appellant. He sought for a declaration of his right to run the customary bull race before the Gangaiyammal temple and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right. His claim was that the bull race and a festival connected with it are conducted in the village during the month of Thai-Masi every year. According to the plaintiff, the right and the privilege to conduct the race and the festival belong only to him that this right was in the past exercised by his father. It was stated that the plaintiff usually gives wide publicity to the race and the festival in the neighbouring villages and also fixes a date therefor. The resident of the village and the neighbouring villages participate therein.Before the race commences, the plaintiff has pooja performed in the temple, breaks the first ceremonial coconut and drives the bull first in the race. He claims this as a hereditary right. It was alleged that the defendants some of wh...
Tag this Judgment!SaifuddIn Hussainibhoy Siamwala and ors. Vs. the Burma Cycle Trading C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad154
ORDER(1) The landlords are the petitioners before me. The petitioners filed an application under S. 10(3) and S. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the respondent and another on the ground that they required the premises bona fide for their own use, occupation and business and that the respondent, without the consent of the petitioners, sub-let a portion of the premises to one Dhandapani and Co., who was also impleaded in the lower courts. Before me, however, the question whether the respondent has sublet the premises has not been agitated and even the alleged sub-tenant has not been impleaded as a party to this petition. The respondent's contention was the petition is misconceived and denied that the petitioners are partners of the firm of 'Saleh Brothers' which pleading was evoked because of the allegations in paragraph 5 of the petition that 'the petitioners are carrying on the business under the name and style of Saleh Bros, at No. 6 Sembudos ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rathnapureeswaraswami Temple, Tiruvalaputhur Represented by Its Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ480
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff Devasthanam in a suit for arrears of rent from agricultural land is the appellant in this second appeal. In an auction held by the plaintiff devasthanam the defendant became the highest bidder for the lease of the land for fasli 1366 at a fixed rent of 120 kalams of paddy and nineteen bundles of straw and a moiety of catch crops.2. It is the admitted case of the parties that subsequent to the auction and the acceptance of the lease, no written contract was entered into between the parties. This suit has been filed for the recovery of the balance of arrears of rent for the fasli in question. The suit was filed on 31st March, 1960. The plaint states that the cause of action for the recovery of rent arose on 31st March, 1957, the last day of the agricultural year. As far as the catch crops were concerned the produce had to be shared and so the share was payable when the produce was realised or harvested and that was in April, 1957. The main defence is limita...
Tag this Judgment!The Concord of India Insurance Company, Ltd. Vs. Kaveri Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ446
ORDERT. Ramaprasad Rao, J.1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the learned District Munsif, Sankari at Salem in I.A. No. 51 of 1964 in O.S. No. 898 of 1959. The plaintiff whose husband was fatally killed in a motor accident, instituted this suit against the first defendant the lorry owner, and the Concord of India Insurance Company, Ltd., Madras, the insurer of the lorry, the second defendant. Soon after the pleadings were complete and issues were framed, the plaintiff gave up the second defendant. The result was that though the second defendant was a party to the suit and raised several defences to the action, it had no opportunity to agitate them and in fact, it did not. During the course of trial the first defendant, at one hearing, was absent and he was ex parte and the suit decreed as such. The first defendant filed an application I.A. No. 5 of 1961 to set aside the ex parte decree. An endorsement was made by the counsel for the first defendant that h...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughavelu Mudaliar Vs. Seth Hiranand Narasindas by Its Agent Krish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ388
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal by the sixth defendant is directed against judgment of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in favour of the respondent on the foot of a mortgage of 17th December, 1953, on the suit property which is house and ground No. 9, Weaver Street, Triplicane, Madras. The mortgage secured repayment of a sum of Rs. 7,500 and was registered, but it was attested by only one witness. There was according to the respondent, an earlier mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 15th April, 1953, for a sum of Rs. 7,500, of which Rs. 5,000 was already owing and the balance was received by the mortgagors, defendants 1 and 2 subsequently. The appellant is a third party Court auction-purchaser on 30th April, 1957, in execution of a maintenance charge decree dated 6th February, 1934, in O.S. No. 174 of 1930 in favour of one Annapurani Ammal. He was impleaded as the sixth defendant to the suit long after its institution, as a proper party. There is an alternative...
Tag this Judgment!Firm of Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills and ors. Vs. Chennimalai Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad287
(1) The petitioners in both the civil revision petitions are the same. The petitioners were the co-owners of a rice-mill known as Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills, along with one Palaniappa. The said Palaniappa sold his moiety of his share to the respondent. The respondent alleged that he is a co-sharer in the said mills and on that basis filed O.S. No. 164 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, for a partition of the mills and for separate possession of his share. The petitioners filed their written statement contending inter alia that the mills is a partnership property and that a suit for partition is not maintainable, during the continuance of the partnership. Whilst this suit was pending, the petitioners filed a suit O.S. No. 520 of 1963 in the District Munsif's Court, Erode, against the respondent and prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing into the rice-mill premises and interfering with the business of the petitioners. The sui...
Tag this Judgment!Cosmopolitan Club Vs. District Employment Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ243Mad
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The Cosmopolitan Club, Madras, is the petitioner. The respondent, the District Employment Officer, wrote to the petitioner-club on 23 March 1953, a letter drawing attention to an earlier letter dated 22 December 1962, wherein the respondent had requested the club to furnish information concerning the employment in the petitioner's establishment. This letter led to the filing of the present writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the proceedings taken by the District Employment officer. The petitioner status in its affidavit that the club is a member club not run with any profit motive, that it is not in the nature of a commercial undertaking and that the communication of the District Employment Officer asking the club to furnish particulars Is based on a misconstruction of what an establishment means within the meaning of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act of 1959. It is the contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Suragmal Bhalechand Vs. Punamchand R. Shah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ615
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner before me. This arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960). The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner committed such acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building. There were several acts of waste complained of in the petition filed before the Rent Controller. The parties, however, have restricted their arguments before me by referring to one incident and act of the tenant, namely, removal of the wooden partition in the first floor and replacing it by pucca walls with no support for the walls on the ground floor. P.W. 3, an Engineer, who was examined, deposed that he found in the first floor one long wall and three cross-walls and that there is no support in the ground floor for these walls and that the new walls throw additional load to the building...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »