Chennai Court December 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.
A. Kandaswami Pillai Vs. P.M. theagaraja Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad203
1. The plaintiff, a dealer in iron and brass vessels, filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 466-15 which is inclusive of interest at 6 p.c. per annum on the amounts due on sale of goods. The transactions are four in number and evidenced by bills Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 in Ex. A-1. Pursuant to a requisition for supply under Ex. A 5, goods under bill No. 3 were sent by lorry under Ex. A 4. Goods under bill No. 5 were sent under cover of lorry receipt Ex. A. 11. Certain adjustments as per Ex. B. 6 (the pattial of the defendant) were made by the plaintiff in this bill for goods supplied by the defendant. Goods under bill No. 7 were sent by lorry under Ex. A. 10. Even so at the request of the defendant under Ex. A. 12, goods were supplied under bill No. 9 and Ex. A. 8 and A. 12 also supporting such a supply.2. The goods supplied under bill No. 7 is a transaction which is admitted, but is said to be a cash transaction. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit in an elaborate discuss...
Gopal Goundar Vs. Amnujammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad222
1. The shorts facts in this case are that on 6th October 1964 the plaintiff as P. W. 1 examined herself and marked certain documents. She however entertained certain apprehensions in her mind that she would obtain a fair trial in the court in which her suit was pending. Therefore on 7th October 1964, she filed a petition for transfer of the suit. This was opposed. The petition was dismissed, and in such circumstances the plaintiff's counsel reported 'no instructions', but the plaintiff, however, appears to have been present in court. The learned District Munsiff, however, dismissed the suit. The question now for consideration is whether such dismissal by the learned District Munsif would enable the plaintiff to take it up in appeal as an appealable order or whether she should have filed an application under Or. 9, Rule 9, C. P. Code for setting aside the ex parte dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision in Natesa Thevar v. Vairavan Servaigaran, :...
Sathu Konar Vs. Duraisami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ473
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question as to how far interference in revision is possible under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, read, with Section 6-B of Madras Act XXV of 1955 as amended, when the lower tribunals had to deal with jurisdictional facts and such tribunals have arrived at certain conclusions which appear to be incorrect. The landlord is the petitioner before me. The respondent claims to be his tenant. The respondent states that he called upon the landlord to be present at the harvest for. purposes of ascertainment and receipt of his share of the produce, and as the petitioner failed to be present either by himself or by his authorised representative at the time of such harvest he bad to undertake the harvest of the produce by himself. The tenant's further case is that he sold the paddy at Rs. 7 a kalam and deposited the value of the rent into Court and has filed this petition under Section 3(3)(a) of Act XXV of 1955. The landlord in h...
A. Kandasami Pillai Vs. P.M. Thiagaraja Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ475
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff, a dealer in iron and brass vessels, filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 466-15 which is inclusive of interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amounts due on sale of goods. The transactions are four in number and evidenced by Bills Nos. 3, 5, 7 and 9 in Exhibit A-I. Persuant to a requisition for supply under Exhibit A-5, goods under Bill No. 3 were sent by lorry under Exhibit A-4. Goods under Bill No. 5 were sent under cover of lorry receipt Exhibit A-11. Certain adjustments as per Exhibit B-6 (the pattial of the defendant) were made by the plaintiff in this bill for goods supplied by the defendant. Goods under Bill No. 7 were sent by lorry under Exhibit A-10. Even so, at the request of the defendant under Exhibit A-12, goods were supplied under Bill No. 9 and Exhibits A-8 and A-12 are also supporting such a supply. The goods supplied under Bill No. 7 is a transaction which is admitted, but is said to be a cash transaction. The learned Di...
Gopal Gounder Vs. Ambujammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ502
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The short facts in this case are that on 6th October, 1964, the plaintiff as P.W. 1 examined herself and marked certain documents. She however entertained certain apprehensions in her mind that she should not obtain a fair trial in the Court in which her suit was pending. Therefore on 7th October, 1964, she filed a petition for transfer of the suit. This was opposed. The petition was dismissed, and in such circumstances the plaintiff's Counsel reported 'no instructions' but the plaintiff, however, appears to have been present in Court. The learned District Munsif, however, dismissed the suit. The question now for consideration is whether such dismissal by the learned District Munsif would enable the plaintiff to take it up in appeal as an appealable order or whether she should have filed an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte dismissal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision in Na...
Management of India Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Palaniswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad52; (1968)ILLJ90Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. This appeal by the employer, the Management of Messrs India Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., raises a question of considerable interest, upon which there would appear to be a paucity of authorities in the Industrial Law, both of this country and of such advanced countries as the United States or the United Kingdom. The actual issue involved arises, with reference to the application of the definition in Section 2(aaa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, of the expression 'average pay', as meaning the average of the wages payable to a workman.(2) The situation in which the issue arose before Srinivasan J. in W. P. No. 568 of 1964 (the judgment in which is reported in Palaniswami v. India Hume Pipe Co., 1965 2 LLJ 541, is not in dispute. The company, which is the appellant before us, closed down on 30th June 1963. 47 workmen were retrenched, consequent on the closure, and they admittedly became entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute...
The Management of the India Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. Vs. K. Palaniswami and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ470
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This appeal by the employer, the Management of Messrs. India Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., raises a question of considerable interest, upon which there would appear to be a paucity of authorities in the Industrial law, both of this country and of such advanced countries as the United States or the United Kingdom. The actual issue involved arises, with reference to the application of the definition in Section 2(aaa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, of the expression 'average pay', as meaning the average of the wages payable to a workman.2. The situation in which the issue arose before Srinivasan, J., in. W.P. No. 568 of 1964 (the judgment in which is reported in Palaniswami v. India Hume Pipe Co. (1965) II L.L.J. 541, is not in dispute. The company, which is the appellant before us, closed down on 30th June, 1963. 47 workmen were retrenched, consequent or the closure, and they admittedly became entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial D...
Sarangapani Chetty Vs. Perumal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad216
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the appellant before Venkatadri, J., in Appeal against Order No. 322 of 1961. As the learned Judge himself states, the proceeding involves a question of some interest, whether a particular ground of the insolvency enacted in Section 6, Sub-section (d)(ii) and (iii) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, can be availed of by the sole creditor of the alleged insolvent. For the purpose of this argument which is the single ground involved in the appeal, the following facts will be sufficient.2. The respondent (creditor) has a decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 153 of 1958, District Munsif's Court, Kallakurichi. The respondent attempted to realise the decree amount by means of four separate execution petitions, but was unsuccessful. According to the respondent, the insolvent (appellant) departed from his dwelling-house and usual place of business, and so secluded himself, that the repeated attempts at executing the decree failed. Thereup...
K.R. Saraswathi Vs. V. Vadivelu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad70
1. The petitioner before me is the landlady. This petition arises under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner filed an application for possession of her premises on the ground that the same was required for the business carried on by her husband. The respondent-tenant contended originally that he was not the tenant, that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that in any event the application was not maintainable as the premises was only required by the landlady's husband. In the appeal before the Court of Small Causes, the relationship of landlord and tenant was not canvassed. Both the Rent Controller and the Court of Small Causes held that the petitioner required the premises bona fide for use and occupation. The Rent Controller however held, on the question of maintainability, that the petition was maintainable by the landlady though the premises was required by her husband. But, on this question, the learned Chief Judge of the Cour...
Abdullah (K.) Vs. Labour Officer Ii and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ850Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the labour officer II, Madras, the appellate authority, In which that authority directed the petitioner, the proprietor of the Janatha Coffee Centre, Mount Road, Madras, to pay a Hum of Rs. 160 to one Chandrasekaran in lieu of an order for reinstatement, on the ground that the petitioner had dismissed him from employment without reasonable cause. The facts lie within a very narrow compass and they can be briefly put down,2. The petitioner alleged that the employee; Chandrasekaran, behaved rudely to him and assaulted him when the employee's conduct towards a customer was questioned by the petitioner. The petitioner went BO far as to say that the Bald Chandraaekaran kicked him In the back and ran away. Thereafter, the petitioner terminated the services of Chandrasekaran for misconduct but did not hold a formal enquiry for that purpose. Section 19 (1) of the Madras Catering Establishments Act, 1958, provides:No employer s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »