Chennai Court November 1967 Judgments
M.M. Valliammai Achi and ors. Vs. Kn. Pl. V. Ramanathan Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad257
1. The above second appeal arises out of a suit for partnership accounts and a half share in the immovable properties described in the plaint schedule. The defendants who opposed the action having succeeded in the trial Court but tailed with respect to the immovable properties on appeal, have preferred the second appeal.One Valliappa Chettiar, father of the plaintiffs, Kuppan Chettiar, father of the 12th defendant, and Meyyappa Chettiar, the deceased husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 to 11, were doing money lending business from 11-11-1921 in Perambalur under the name and style of 'PL. M. Valliappa Chettiar, Valliappa Chettiar was entitled to a half share and the other two partners, Kuppan Chettiar and Meyyappa Chettiar, were each entitled to a quarter share. The suit properties were acquired for the moneys due to the partnership under Ex, A-3 in 1924 and formed assets of the partnership. To this extent the facts were admitted.Valliappa Chettiar died in March 1933...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Andhra Laundry (Proprietor R.A. Masillamani) Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ132
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. An important and interesting question of law arises in these writ petitions namely whether the receipts passed by the erstwhile workmen to the management in full settlement of all their claims at the time of the closure of the business would estop them from claiming the full statutory benefits conferred on them under the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is the management of Messrs. Andhra Laundry. There was an industrial dispute between the management of the Laundry and its workmen, and the Labour Court, Madras passed an award, by consent of parties, in I.D. No. 32 of 1962 relating to demands for revision of pay-scales, payment of dearness allowance and for the introduction of a gratuity scheme. The management carried out the obligations undertaken by it in that award. However, in July, 1963, the management did not find it possible to continue the business and decided to close the Laundry. That was mainly because the proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian and anr. Vs. Kaliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ548
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One daughter and the descendants of other two daughters of one Thanuvan Arumugham filed O.S. No. 120 of 1962 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Nageroil praying for a declaration of their tide to and possession of the plaint property and for a declaration that the defendants had neither title to nor possession of the plaint property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enterting into possession of the plaint property. The plaint property was described as S. No. 4140 and of an extent of 3 acres 54 cents in Therur village. The defendants in the suit contested the claim of the plaintiffs alleging that the suit property never belonged to Arumugham and they were the persons entitled to the property.2. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs was that the suit property belonged to Thanuvan Arumugham who had three daughters and two sons and after the death of Arumugham the property was divided as between the three daughter...
Tag this Judgment!United Motor Works, Madras Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad322; [1969]23STC503(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This matter relates to the year 1957-58. The assessee is the Petitioner. He was originally assessed by an order dated December 15, 1958 on a turnover of Rs. 1,45,264.78 P. But by a subsequent Order dated March 11, 1963 the turnover was revised and enhanced to Rs. 2,05,44064 P. on the ground that the deduction allowed to an extent of 30 per cent for labour charges was erroneous. While so revising, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Triplicane Division, subjected a part of the turnover to tax at a certain rate for a part of the period and the rest of the turnover at a higher rate for the remaining period. While dismissing the assessee's Appeal against that order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner further enhanced the rate, apparently on the view that a lower rate had been applied. The Tribunal declined to interfere and dismissed the further appeal filed by the assessee.2. It seems to us that the Tribunal was correct in its view that the turnover consisted of sales and ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharma Udayar Vs. Ramachandra Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ181
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. There were three brothers : Ponnuswami, Munuswami and Govindarajulu. They were the sons of one Thandavaraya. On 19th June, 1917, Thandavaraya, his two sons, Munuswami and Govindarajulu and Manonmani, the widow of Ponnuswami, entered into a partition which is evidenced by Exhibit A-1. The defendant is the son of Munuswami. Govindarajulu executed a will Exhibit A-2 on 12th August, 1931, in favour of his sister, Ammakannu, who settled the properties on the plaintiff under Exhibit A-3, dated 25th January, 1960. The question that arises is as to the effect of the partition deed Exhibit A-1.2. According to the plaintiff Govindarajulu got a vested remainder in respect of the properties given to Manonmani under Exhibit 1 and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to the properties settled on him. According to the defendant, however, the effect of Exhibit A-l is to give an absolute right to Manonmani and he is entitled to the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Marisami Brothers by Its Managing Partner M. Marisami Vs. Bluemount Sw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ573
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Defendants 4 to 9 wore partners carrying on business as Messrs. Ramakrishna Metal and Alloy Industries, the 2nd defendant. The fourth defendant was also the sole proprietor of the third defendant, namely, Messrs. General Pump Factory. It is the common case of both sides that subsequent to the events which have taken place constituting the cause of action of the plaintiff, the businesses of the second and third defendants were taken over by the first defendant.2. Before dealing with the contentions raised in the present appeal, it is necessary to set out certain facts as providing the background for instituting the suit which gave rise to the second appeal. The managing director of the first defendant filed O.S. No. 1243 of 1959 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,302-99 from the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff also filed O.S. No. 1419 of 1959 against all the defendants in the present suit for production of their accounts of sale etc,, for the period from 1st February,...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Presidency Talkies by Proprietor, Paragon Talkies Vs. N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad121; [1968(17)FLR251]; (1968)IILLJ801Mad
Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In our view, the learned Judge (Venkatadri, J.), was perfectly justified in declining to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court, which itself embodies the decision of the Labour Court not to permit the Management to dismiss the employee for alleged misconduct under Section 33(2)(b), proviso, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the outset a certain complicating feature might be referred to. It appears that subsequent to the decision in this writ petition by Venkatadri, J., or , at any rate, subsequent to the order of the Labour Court declining to grant the statutory permission under Section 33(2)(b) proviso, another dispute was raised on behalf of the employee, in the same situation or context, because the employee had not been further employed by the Management. It would seem that this eventuated in a different reference to the Labour Court, which again went into the merits, and held that the non-employment of the employee was opp...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasankara Mehta Vs. Bagwandas Arjunlal Bankers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad112
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal filed under the Letters Patent is directed against the order of Ramamurti, J., in I. P. No. 42 of 1965, a petition filed by a creditor to adjudge one Sivasankara Mehta, the appellant, an insolvent. The ground relied on by the petitioning creditor is a brief one. He alleged that the debtor's properties were attached in execution of a decree passed by the City Civil Court, Madras for payment of money, that the attachment remained subsisting for a period of more than 21 days, and that consequently this amounted to an act of insolvency, as denned in Section 9(e) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act. That section is in the following terms-'A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following cases:-- (e) if any of his property has been sold or attached for a period of not less than 21 days in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money.' Under Section 12(c) such a petition has to be filed by the creditor within three months from t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Abdul Kader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1082; (1968)2MLJ515
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellant, Abdul Kader, has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of his wife, Kathija Bibi, by stabbing her several times with a bichuva at about 7-30 a.m. on 24th January, 1967 in his house at Varpet Village, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. There can be no doubt in this case that the appellant and his wife Kathija Bibi were not on good terms. The learned Sessions Judge has however observed in paragraph 13 of his judgment that the motive for the murder is not clear. P.W. 2, Fathima Bibi, the mother of the appellant, who was permitted to be cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, has stated in her evidence that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased because of the appellant suspecting the fidelity of his wife. In fact, the appellant has married again. The appellant does not also dispute the fact that he has married again. It is also an undisputed fact that the appellant wrote the letter Exhi...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Presidency Talkies by Proprietor, Paragon Talkies Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ221
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. In our view, the learned Judge (Venkatadri, J.) was perfectly justified in declining to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court, which itself embodies the decision of the Labour Court not to permit the management to dismiss the employee for alleged misconduct under Section 33 (2) (b) proviso of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the outset a certain complication feature might be referred to. It appears that subsequent to the decision in this Writ petition by Venkatadri, J., or, at any rate, subsequent to the order of the Labour Court declining to grant the statutory permission under Section 33 (2) (b), proviso, another dispute was raised on behalf of the employee, in the same situation of context, because the employee had not been further employed by the management. It would seem that this eventuated in a different reference to the Labour Court, which again Went into the merits, and held that the non-employment of the employee wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »