Chennai Court March 1966 Judgments
Subbarama Reddiar Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ263
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by one Subbarama Reddiar, the respondent before Venkatadri, J., in C.M.S. No. 9 of 1964, from the judgment and decree of the learned Judge. We may very briefly state that the proceeding before the learned Judge was of the nature of a Second Appeal, in respect of a petition under Section 10(f) and Section 13 of the Hindu, Marriage Act (XXV of 1955), for a decree for judicial separation originally before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Chingleput.2. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Chingleput went into the facts of the evidence before him, elaborately on the merits, and held that the act of adultery alleged by the husband (appellant) against his wife Saraswathi Ammal (Respondent) on the occasion in question, was legally proved, and hence that the husband was-entitled to a decree for judicial separation Under Section 10(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The matter went up on appeal to the learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Syamala Studios Vs. S.S. Kannu Devar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ167
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petition is filed by the Management of Syamala Studios, Arcot Road, Madras, for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, in Complaint No. 15 of 1963 in I.D. No. 33 of 1963. The respondent was in the employment of the petitioner as a watchman. He was getting as his wage sum of Rs. 40 per month. There was an industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court regarding the wages, dearness allowances, etc.,. on 19th July, 1963. When the dispute was pending, on 12th October, 1963, the petitioner refused employment to the respondent. The petitioner did not obtain the approval under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On behalf of the Management, it was contended that the respondent was working as a temporary gardener from 22nd January, 1963 on a monthly salary of Rs. 40 and as his services were not required after 31st August, 1963, accounts were settled with him and the respondent stopped away from work.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. Minor Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad113
(1) The defendants in a suit for declaration of title to properties and possession of the same with claim for mesne profits, are the appellants in this second appeal. The facts relevant and material for the second appeal may be briefly set out.(2) The suit properties originally belonged to one Anjalai Ammal wife of Arumugha Padayachi, the putative father of the plaintiffs in the suit. They are the children of Arumugha Padayachi by his concubine Marimuthu Ammal. Anjalai Ammal having no male issue, under the deed of settlement Ex. A.1 dated 25-10-1955, settled the suit properties on the minor plaintiffs. The deed of settlement refers to Arumugha Padayachi as their protector, father and guardian and is recited therein that the properties which had been settled on them are on their behalf placed in possession of their guardian, the said Arumugha Padaychi. Certain conditions are imposed under the deed enjoining the settles to maintain Arumugha Padayachi during his lifetime, the properties ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. Minor Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ420
M. Natesan, J.1. The defendants in a suit for declaration of title to properties and possession of the same with claim for mesne profits, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The facts relevant and material for the Second Appeal may be briefly set out.2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Anjalai Ammal, wife of Arumugha Padayachi, the putative father of the plaintiffs in the suit. They are the children of Arumugha Padayachi by his concubine Marimuthu Ammal. Anjalai Ammal having no male issue, under the deed of settlement Exhibit A-1 dated 25th October, 1955, settled the suit properties on the minor plaintiffs. The deed of settlement refers to Arumugha Padayachi as their protector, father and guardian, and it is recited therein that the properties which had been settled on them are on their behalf placed in possession of their guardian, the said Arumugha Padayachi. Certain conditions are imposed under the deed enjoining the settlees to maintain Arumugha Padayachi during...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ratchaganadan Vs. Kishindas Shamadasunder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad279
M. Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J.(1) The appeal is from the judgment of Venkataraman J. in an insolvency proceeding before the learned Judge, and, the learned Judge allowed the proceedings and adjudicated the appellant (Ratchaganathan) as insolvent, the under S. 13 read with S. 9(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, mainly on this conclusion of fact that the appellant (insolvent) departed from his dwelling house or usual place of business, and also secluded himself, under such circumstances as to warrant the inference that he did so with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. Since most of the facts are not in dispute, it is sufficient for us to deal with matter fairly briefly, on the merits of the evidence adduced before the learned judge.(2) As far as the present respondent (petitioning creditor) is concerned, he had to meet a preliminary ground of absence of the requisite territorial jurisdiction in the court, but we do not propose to dilate on this, for the simple reason that it appears to ...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Bombay Co. (P) Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad318a; (1966)IILLJ686Mad
(1) These second appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the trustees of the Port Trust, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,360 which they had to pay their workman, one Danapal, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923, Second Appeal No. 1005 of 1962 has been preferred by the plaintiff, the Port Trust, against the decree of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. The Court of first instance held the other way and, finding on other issues also in favour of the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Second Appeal No. 1550 of 1962 has been preferred by the defendant for costs disallowed on appeal.(2) The case raises certain interesting questions and I shall first set out the relevant and material facts as they have emerged finally for consideration in the second appeal. The injured workman, Danapal, formed part of the shore labour force at Madras Harbour of the Port Trust and, ...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port of Madras, Represented by their Chairman Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ226
M. Natesan, J.1. These Second Appeals arise out of a suit instituted by the Trustees of the Port Trust, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,360 which they had to pay their workman one Danapal under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923. S.A. No. 1005 of 1962 has been preferred by the plaintiff, the Port Trust, against the decree of the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dismissing the suit on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Court of first instance held the other way and, finding on other issues also in favour of the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. S.A. No. 1550 of 1962 has been preferred by the defendant for costs disallowed on appeal.2. The case raises certain interesting questions and I shall first set out the relevant and material facts as they have emerged finally for consideration in the Second Appeal. The injured workman Dhanapal formed part of the shore labour force at Madras Harbour of the Port Trust and, when on du...
Tag this Judgment!P.B.K. Raja Chidambaram Vs. the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ370
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tiruchirapalli District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd., represented by its Secretary to forbear from holding the special meeting for the election of the President and the Vice-President for the bank at 3 P.M. on 13th March, 1966. The petitioner was a Director and Vice-President of the bank having been elected for three years from 1st January, 1965. But he retired on 31st December, 1965, because according to the Rules one-third of the directors had to retire by rotation. For filling up the vacancy caused by the petitioner's retirement, elections were to be held by the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union, Ltd., wherefrom the petitioner was returned. Dates for the nomination, scrutiny, time for withdrawal and the election were fixed. The petitioner also filed the nomination for election to the Directorate of the Tiruchirapalli Co-operative Central Bank from the Lalgudi Co-operative Superv...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ratchaganadan, Proprietor of M. Arokiasami and Son Vs. Kishindas Sh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ548
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. The appeal is from the judgment of Venkataraman, J., in an insolvency proceeding before the learned Judge, and, toe learned Judge allowed the proceedings and adjudicated the appellant (Ratchaganadan) as insolvent, under Section 13 read with Section 9(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, mainly on his conclusion of fact that the appellant (insolvent) departed from his dwelling house or usual place of business, and also secluded himself, under such circumstances as to warrant the inference that he did so with intent to defeat or delay his creditors. Since most of the facts are not in dispute, it is sufficient for us to deal with the matter fairly briefly, on the merits of the evidence adduced before the learned Judge.2. As far as the present respondent (petitioning-creditor) is concerned, he had to meet a preliminary ground of absence of the requisite territorial jurisdiction in the Court, but we do not propose to dilate on this, for the simple reason that it appears...
Tag this Judgment!M. L. M. Mahalingam Chettiar Vs. Third Income-tax Officer, City Circle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]66ITR287(Mad)
ANANTANARAYANAN, OFFG. C.J. - The writ petitioner instituted a proceeding in this court for a writ of mandamus directing an Income-tax Officer to forbear from recovering from the petitioner the tax assessed at Rs. 72,000 and odd in pursuance of a demand pending disposal of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 'A' Range, Madras. Srinivasan J., before whom the matter came up, dismissed the writ petition in layman, making a brief observation to the effect that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to proceed to collect the tax was not in dispute. It is from this judgment that the writ appeal is sought to be filed.We may state that learned counsel for the writ-appellant (Sri Rajah Iyer) does not dispute the proposition of the learned judge that the concerned authority (Income-tax Officer) had the requisite jurisdiction. His complaint is that the Income-tax Officer has not paid adequate regard to section 220, sub-clause (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »