Chennai Court November 1967 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.
M. Jayaram Vs. Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ433
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras in Appeal No. 433 of 1967, dated 4th August, 1967, and to quash the order. The petitioner is a bus operator in South Arcot region. His bus MDF 1866 is plying on the route Cuddalore to Sirkali viz, Portonoyo, Bhuvanagiri, Chidambaram and Coleroon. In April, 1966 he applied to the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, the primary authority for varying the condition of the permit. He sought to extend the route from Cuddalore to Sirkali as Cuddalore to Vaitheeswarankoil. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot considered the petitioner's application and felt that the extension was in the interest of the public. The Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore did not give his concurrence for the extension of the route. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot then moved the Transport Commissioner for settlement of the...
Thangayya Vanniar Vs. Ramaswamy (Minor) Represented by His Mother Papa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ27
Ismail, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits filed by the respondents herein against the appellant for the recovery of possession of certain lands in possession of the appellant with past and future profits. Admittedly the lands in the possession of the appellant originally belonged to Ammani Ammal and Vijayathammal of Kabistalam and the appellant herein was a tenant under them in respect of the lands in question. The case of the plaintiffs in the suits was that the plaintiffs, who were minors and were represented by their mother Papathi Ammal, the next friend, Were the purchasers of the lands in question from their previous owners under two sale deeds dated 29th December, 1956, and registered on 29th April, 1957; the appellant was formerly cultivating the lands on yearly lease under the vendors of the plaintiffs; the appellant despite the demand did not pay the income to the plaintiff's next friend for the enjoyment of the suit lands after the purchase by the plaintiffs, thou...
A. Sanjeevi Naidu and ors. Vs. the Madras State Transport Undertaking ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1967
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ300
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. These writ proceedings involve, essentially, the validity of a scheme said to have been framed and promulgated by the first respondent, namely, the Madras State transport undertaking, here represented by its Director, Mr. T.V. Venkataraman, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Chapter IV-A). The writs seek to restrain both the first respondent and the State of Madras (second respondent), from proceeding further with this promulgated scheme, under the relevant sections of the law, on the grounds exhibited in the writ petitions. As is well known, and I do not think that it is necessary, for this purpose, to proceed into the history of the prerogative writ of prohibition in the United Kingdom, a writ of prohibition issues ex debito justitiae, where absence of jurisdiction can be demonstrated ; it is not the power to nationalise the road transport service which is in issue, nor the scheme of the relevant sections ; what is claimed is that the...
S. Thangavelu Pillai Vs. E.M. Mani (Decd) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad316
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11th July 1962 of the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Thanjavur, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner appellant herein for excusing the delay in filing an application for payment of compensation. With reference to an alleged accident that took place on 6th October 1960, on 6th October 1961, the appellant herein instituted a suit for payment of compensation. That plaint was returned on 20th November 1961 for presentation to the proper forum and the appellant herein presented the same to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Under Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the period of limitation prescribed for an application for compensation is sixty days and the proviso to that sub-section confers a power on the Tribunal to excuse the delay if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.The appellant herein, pursuant to this provi...
S. Thangavelu Pillai Vs. E.M. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ133
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11th July, 1962, of the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Thanjavur, Thanjavur, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner appellant herein for excusing the delay in filing an application for payment of compensation. With reference to an alleged accident that took place on 6th October, 1960, on 6th October, 1961, the appellant therein instituted a suit for payment of compensation. That plaint was returned on 20th November, 1961, for presentation to the proper forum and the appellant herein presented the same to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Under Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the period of limitation prescribed for an application for compensation is sixty days and the proviso to that sub-section confers a power on the Tribunal to excuse the delay if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from the making the application in time. The appellant he...
Saroja Mills Ltd., Through Its Director, Proprietor, Thiagarayan Mills ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ426
M. Natesan, J.1. The short question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the appellant's building housing a spinning mills within the limits of Uchapatti Panchayat Board, Tirumangalam taluk, is liable for house-tax under the Madras Panchayats Act XXXV of 1958. The suit has been instituted by the appellant, Saroja Mills, Limited, Coimbatore, for a declaration that the defendant Panchayat Board, the respondent herein had no right to levy house-tax on the mills owned by it, as it is a factory and not a house. Refund of Rs. 1,031-25 has been prayed for as tax illegally collected. The learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai and on appeal the learned District Judge of Madurai, having due regard to the principles governing interpretation of taxation provisions upheld the validity of the levy. The only basis on which the levy is sought to be invalidated is that the spinning mill is a factory, which would fall under the definition of 'factory' in statutes providing for the establishm...
In Re: Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1967
Reported in: 1969CriLJ83; (1968)1MLJ304
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 304-A and 337, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under the former section, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ulundurpet. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 337, Indian Penal Code.. On appeal the Sessions Judge, South Arcot, confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case is briefly this : On the night of 17th September, 1965 at about 3 A.M., P.WS. 1, 2 and 3 were travelling in two carts laden with manure leaves from Sathanur towards Ulundurpet through the G.S.T. Road proceeding from south to north. P.W. 1 was driving the first cart and the deceased Samikannu and another person were sitting on the top of the leaves in that cart which was followed by the cart driven by P.W. 2 in which P.W. 3 and another person were seated on the top of the leaves. The lorry MDS. 6721 driven by the petitioner was coming behind the two carts and suddenly dashed again...
Vr. S. Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.J. Mahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC255(Mad)
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order of the 'Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, directing the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Chepauk, Madras, to produce certain documents. The respondent, Mahadevan, filed a private complaint against the revision petitioners V.R. S. RM. Ramaswami Chettiar and others under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The respondent filed an application before the Fifth Presidency Magistrate to send for the following documents from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Chepauk, Madras:1. Report of the investigation undertaken by the Department of Commercial Taxes on the background given by the complainant on 21st April, 1966;2. A report of the investigation; and3. The books of accounts seized by the Department of Commercial Taxes in 1954 from the office of Messrs Chettiar Films both at Madurai and Trichy and from the houses of the partners of M/s. Chettiar Films, or ...
Andhra Laundry (Proprietor, R.A. Masilamani) Vs. Additional Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ356Mad
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. An important and interesting question of law arises in these writ petitions, namely, whether thereceipts passed by the erstwhile workmen to the management in fall settlement of all their claims at the time of the closure of the business would stop 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 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 Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1962 relating to demands for revision of pay-scales, payment of dear-ness 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 prop...
Vr.S.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.J. Mahadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ393
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, directing the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Chepauk, Madras, to produce certain documents. The respondent Mahadevan filed a private complaint against the revision petitioners VR. S. RM. Ramaswami Chettiar and others under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The respondent filed an application before the Fifth Presidency Magistrate to send for the following documents from the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Chepauk, Madras.1. Report of the investigation undertaken by the Department of Commercial Taxes on the background given by the complainant on 21st April, 1966.2. A report of the investigation; and3. The books of accounts seized by the Department of Commercial Taxes in 1954 from the office of M/s. Chettiar Films both at Madurai and Trichy and from the houses of the partners of M/s. Chettiar Films, or the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »