Chennai Court April 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.
Workmen of Tinnevelly-tuticorIn Electric Supply Company, Ltd. Vs. Indu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ523Mad
K. Srinivasan, J.1. A dispute between the workmen and the management of the Tinnevelly-Tuticorin Electric Supply, referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication, related to the payment of additional bonus for the year 1960-61. The company had already granted three months' bonus, but the union on behalf of the workers claimed that the surplus available from out of the trading profits of the relevant year would justify the grant of six months' bonus. The management was asked to file a statement showing the calculation of the profit according to the Full Bench formula. Before the tribunal, the union objected to the debit of certain items. Among them was rebate to consumers, which, according to the union, should not have been deducted from the gross profits as a prior charge. Another objection was that, having regard to the nature of the industry, since the company was only distributing electric power, there could not be depreciation of the static machinery, such as overhead lines, u...
C.D. Sekkizhar and anr. Vs. the Secretary, Bar Council and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ249
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. While disposing of W.P. No. 4313 of 1965 on 6th January, : (1966)2MLJ35 this Court said:The Bar Council is entitled to proceed with the election from the place where it was stopped by the stay orders of this Court. 25th March, 1966, is fixed as the date for polling. Since then the Government of India made a notification published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 10th January, 1966. This notification is captioned as the Advocates (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1966 and was to take effect from 1st November, 1965. The substantive part of the notification reads:Extension of term of office of elected members of the State Bar Councils required to retire under Section 8 of the Adocates' Act, 1961--Every elected member of a State Bar Council due to retire after the 1st day of November, 1965, under Section 8 of the said Act on the expiration of the second year from the date of such reconstitution, shall, notwithstanding such expiration, continue to hold off...
D. Gobalousamy Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad298
M. Anantanarayanan, Offg. C.J.1. These are two related writ petitions for the issue of writs of quo warranto, which originally sought for writs of mandamus, instituted by Sri. D. Gobalouswami, an Advocate--Conceil practising in the Pondicherry Courts for over 19 years, and currently President of the Bar Association. he challenges the orders of appointments of Sri S. Maharajan as the President of the Tribunal Superieur d'Appeal in Pondicherry and of Sri R. Krishnamurthi as the Puisne Judge of the same Court. Very broadly stated, the grounds of attack are that a Process Verbal, which was conducted between the French and the Indian delegations on 15-3-1963, and which has to be regarded as integral with the treaty of Cession, has guaranteed certain rights to the citizens of Pondicherry in respect of the judicial organisation and the qualifications of the judiciary, which have been infringed by the abrupt change made evident by these appointments.(2) It is common ground between the writ pet...
Shamlal and Ors. Vs. Parle's of Products Manufacturing Company (P.), L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ246
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks in an application filed by the appellants for the registration of their trade mark containing interalia the expression Pearl and the letters, JJ in Glass 30 in respect of a designation of goods which was worded biscuits. When this application was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal of 1st June, 1963, the respondents filed a notice of opposition under Section 21 of the Act. The respondents are well-known manufacturer of biscuits. They are the registered proprietors of a reputed trade-mark consisting of the expression 'Parle's ' under Mark No. 9202 which has acquired a great reputation in the market. They contended that the mark sought to be registered by the appellants was deceptively similar to their mark and that therefore its registration was barred under Section 12(1) and (5) of the Act. The respondents also contended that having regard to their extensive reputation acquired by the trad...
In Re: Raja Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ518
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 3247 of 1965 are the accused in P.R.C. No. 22 of 1965, on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Sankari, initiated on a police charge-sheet under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner Raja Goundan is the husband of second petitioner Sattiammal and the son of the complainant Chinna Goundan. Chinna Goundan got himself divided from his four sons. But he was living with and looking after the properties of his minor son Subramaniam. Raja Goundan was inimically disposed towards his father as he felt that his father was giving all his income to his youngest son but was also giving him trouble. On the morning of 8th September, 1965 at 7 A.M. when Chinna Goundan went to the well owned in common by his sons, Raja Goundan and Subramaniam to irrigate the ' lands of Subramaniam, Raja Goundan prevented him from doing so, picked up a quarrel and, at that time, both Raja Goundan and his wife Sattiammal lifted him and threw him into the well...
D. Gobalousamy Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry, by Its Lt. Gove ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ85
M. Anantanarayanan, O.C.J.1. These are two related writ petitions for the issue of writs of quo warranto, which originally sought for writs of mandamus, instituted by Sri D. Gobalousamy, an Advocat-Conceil practising in the Pondicherry Courts for over 19 years, and currently President of the Bar Association. He challenges the orders of appointment of Sri S. Maharajan as the President of the Tribunal Superieur d'Appel at Pondicherry; and of Sri R. Krishnamurthi as the Puisne Judge of the same Court. Very broadly stated, the grounds of attack are that a Proces-Verbal, which was concluded between the French and the Indian delegations on 15th March, 1963, and which has to be regarded as integral with the Treaty of Cession, has guaranteed certain rights to the citizens of Pondicherry in respect of the judicial organisation and the qualifications of the judiciary, which have been infringed by the abrupt change made evident by these appointments.2. It is common ground between the writ petitio...
Pattayee Ammal Vs. Manickam Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad254; 1967CriLJ900
(1) This is an appeal preferred by the wife against the order of the courts below dissolving her marriage with the first respondent-husband, on a petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife has been living in adultery with the second respondent.(2) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these. The first respondent is a man of influence as well as affluence. He is possessed of immovable properties about 50 acres and he gets an annual income of Rs. 50,000. He is a much married man, having three wives at the same time, and the appellant is the third wife. The first respondent married the appellant when she was three years. After attaining puberty, she joined the first respondent. The first wife has two daughters. The second wife died in 1957 leaving behind two sons and a daughter. Manicka Gounder a brother-in-law of the first respondent, was looking after the children left be...
Netaji Bus and Lorry Service, Madras Vs. S.G. Gurumurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad191
ORDER(1) This civil revision petition arises out of a small cause suit instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery of Rs. 175 being the cost of the empty cylinder which was delivered to the branch office at Tiruturaipundi of the petitioner herein. The respondent contended that the cylinder had not been delivered to the proper person. The petitioner-defendant resisted the suit on the ground that it was barred by time and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose at Madras. The lower court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant has come to this court with this revision petition.(2) The only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the question of limitation. According to him the date of despatch of the consignment is 2-3-1961. The respondent sent a registered letter to the petitioner herein informing them that the goods has not...
M.K. Venkatachari and ors. Vs. L.A.R. Arunachalam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad410
(1) These cases which raise an interesting question of limitation have their origin in the suit O. S. No. 191 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli which was instituted by four subscribers to an auction chit managed by one M. K. Rangachari, the 55th defendant in the suit. The 54th defendant, M. V. Kuppuswami Chettiar, was the father of the 55th defendant and the 56th defendant was the brother of the 55th defendant. The case of the plaintiffs was that the chit business was joint family business of defendants 54 to 56, that the chit under question carried on at 'Kubera Bhavanam', Malaivasal, Tiruchirapalli in which the plaintiffs were interested was only a branch of the main business which was carried on by the 54th defendant at No. 49, Maniakara Street, Tiruchirapalli the family house. Defendants 1 to 53 and defendants 57 to 74 were impleaded as other subscribers to the chit. Some of them, it was alleged as successful bidders at the chit auctions had draw...
Netaji Bus and Lorry Service Vs. S.G. Gurumurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ170
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Small Cause Suit instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery of Rs. 175 being the cost of the empty cylinder which was delivered to the branch office at Tiruthuraipundi of the petitioner herein. The respondent contended that the cylinder had not been delivered to the proper person. The petitioner-defendant resisted the suit on the ground that it was barred by time and that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the entire cause of action arose at Madras. The lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein. It is against this judgment and decree that the defendant has come to this Court with this revision petition.2. The only point that was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is-the question of limitation. According to him, the date of despatch of the consignment is 2nd March, 1961. The respondent sent a registered letter to the petitioner herein informing them th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›