Chennai Court December 1967 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad212
Ismail, J.1. The appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision petition is one and the same, namely, the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. The said Union of India filed O. S. No. 21 of 1958 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of salem and the same was decreed on 16th April 1960 with costs. On an appeal preferred by the respondents in A. S. 183 of 1960 on the file of this court, the appeal was allowed and that decree was set aside. Before the disposal of this appeal, pursuant to the decree in the suit, the respondents had paid the costs to the Union of India. After the disposal of the appeal, the respondents filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 11 and Section 144, C. P. Code for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3, 528, by way of restitution, being the costs paid by them to the Union of India with interest. That application was ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge on 20-4-1966, though the court restric...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatachalam (K.) and ors. Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ807Mad
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2096 of 1966 id preferred by three convoy drivers working in the Ashok Leyland, Ltd., Encore, and Writ petition No. 2531 of 1966 by the Ashok Leyland Workers' and Staff Union, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari allying for the records of the industrial tribunal, Madras, in industrial Dispute No. 39 of 1965 March 1966, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30 March 1966.2. The case of the petitioners is that the three petitioners on Writ Petition No. 2096 of 1966 joined respondent 1 company as convoy slivers and subsequently appointed as convoy leaders. Respondent 1 company used to entrust the convoy leader, Passenger and lorry chassis for being delivered to dealers throughout India, and the petitioners had effected delivery in places like Jammu and Kashmir, Allahabad, etc. They were paid a daily batta of Rs. 7, the respondent-company had 62 convoy leaders working under them. The petitioner and the other convoy leaders ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkatachalam and ors. Vs. the Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ186
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 2G96 of 1956 is preferred by three convoy drivers working in the Ashok Leyland Limited, Ennore, and W.P. No. 2531 of 1966 by the Ashok Leyland Workers' and Staff Union, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 39 of 1965 and quash the award made by it on 2nd March, 1966, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30th March, 1966.2. The case of the petitioners is that the three petitioners in W.P. No. 2096 of 1966 joined the first respondent company as convoy drivers and subsequently appointed as convoy leaders. The first respondent company used to entrust the convoy leaders, passenger and lorry chassis for being delivered to dealers throughout India, and the petitioners had effected delivery in places like Jammu and Kashmir, Allahabad, etc. They were paid a daily batta of Rs. 7. The respondent-company had sixty-two convoy leaders working under them. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!isherdas Sahni and Brothers by Partner V.N. Sahni Vs. Rajah V. Rajeswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ233
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. The main point that arises for decision in this case is whether the plaintiff (hereinafter called the lessees) are entitled to the benefits and protection under the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (referred to herein as the Act) as amended by Madras Act (XI of 1964), in respect of a building or a Theatre known as ' Odeon Cinema '. This Cinema theatre belonged to two brothers, the first and the second defendant in equal shares and the second defendant, since dead, sold his half share to defendants 3 to 5 under a registered sale deed, dated 14th October, 1966. As certain objections were raised concerning the rights of the plaintiffs to obtain a renewal of the licence under the Madras Cinema Regulations, the Commissioner of Police, has been impleaded as the sixth defendant.2. The relevant facts about which there is no serious controversy may be stated. The suit theatre which is now popularly known as ' Odeon Cinema ' belonged to defendants 1 and 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Gnanavelu and anr. Vs. D.P. Kannayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad180
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, awarding a compensation of Rs. 5037.48 to the respondents herein in respect of the death of one Doriaswami Pillai involved in an accident on 30-11-1961. On 30-11-1961 at about 9-30 a. m. when the deceased was crossing Kanganathan Chetti Road, Nungambakkam, somewhere opposite to the Indian Bank he was knocked down by the motor cycle driven by the first appellant herein. The Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the first appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,000/-, under the head of pain and suffering and another sum of Rs. 4,000/- for loss of expectancy of life and a sum of Rs. 37.48 being the expenses incurred for taking X-ray totalling a sum of Rs. 5037.48.2. Mr. V.S. Subramaniam, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that rashness and negligence on the part of the first appellant has not been established. In this case, the persons who...
Tag this Judgment!Velappan Pillai Vs. Parappan Panickar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad309
Natesan, J.1. This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of proceedings for final decree in a suit for redemption. To appreciate the problems raised in the case, it is necessary to set out briefly the history of the proceedings leading to the preliminary decree in the suit.2. The suit property belonged to one Vyakulam, the widow of one Innasi. Shesettled it on the husband of her daughter Chandanom, and after legal proceedings against strangers in possession of the property commenced by her husband and continued by her after his death, Chandanom acquired title to the property. Chandanom had a sister Anthonial and two brothers, Chinnian and Innasi Soosah. Anthonial was the younger sister. Chandanom had no issue. She entered into an agreement with her brothers for them to inherit the property after her death, providing for her enjoyment of the property during her lifetime. She settled a portion of the property on her sister, Anthonial for her marriage as stridhana and also incurred ex...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdulla and Bros. Vs. Check Post Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC260(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions K. P. Abdulla & Bros., by its partner is a general merchant at Court Road, Calicut. The respondent is the Check Post Officer, Kandaigoundanchavadi, Coimbatore, which is on the border of Coimbatore District in the Madras State and Calicut in the Kerala State. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1104 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the order of the respondent dated 2nd March, 1965, levying on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 1,000 in lieu of confiscation of the goods, passed under Section 42(3)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing redelivery of 45 bags of maida, 20 bags of alia and 20 bags of khandasari sugar belonging to the petitioner and which are in the possession of the respondent. The two writ petitions are connected, because the penalty, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Gounder, Chinnasami Gounder Alias Chinna Gounder Vs. Anantap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ392
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The lands in S.F. Nos. 24, 25, 30 and 31 in Sekkanur village, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore district, originally belonged to a joint family consisting of one Muruga Pillai and his two sons Arunachala and Ramakrishna. On 19th November, 1917, the father and the two sons executed a mortgage over these lands in favour of one Kuppuswamy Chettiar (Exhibit B-2). On the same date, they entered into a partition deed Exhibit B-1. Under the partition deed Muruga Pillai was allotted S.F. Nos. 24 and 25 along with rights in the well in S.F. No. 30 with the two picotahs while Arunachala was allotted S.F. Nos. 30 and 31. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the present appeal to take into consideration the properties allotted to the share of Ramakrishna. In that partition deed, the operative portion in relation to the allotment of the shares as between the three coparceners read as follows:The document also contained the following clause with reference to the share allotted to Muruga P...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdulla and Bros., by Its Partner K.P. Ummar Vs. the Check-post O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ112
ORDERP.S. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions K. P. Abdulla & Bros., by its partner is a general merchant at Court Road, Calicut. The Respondent is the Check-Post Officer, Kandai Goundan Chavadi, Coimbatore, which is on the border of Coimbatore District in the Madras State and Calicut in the Kerala State. The prayer in W.P. No. 1104 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the order of the respondent, dated 2nd March 1965 levying on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 1,000 in lieu of confiscation of goods passed under Section 42 (3) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The prayer in W.P. No. 1154 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing re-delivery of 45 bags of maida, 20 bags of atta and 20 bags of khandasari sugar belonging to the petitioner and which are in the possession of the respondent. The two writ petitions are connected, because the penalty, the subject ma...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ294Mad
Kailasam, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Ltd., for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Claim Petition No. 177 of 1966 on the file of the presiding officer, labour court, Madurai, and to quash the order dated 16 July 1966, and made therein.2. Respondent 1 was working as a senior salesman in the above society at Madurai. He retired from service on 18 February 1965, as he had attained the age of superannuation. On 22 March 1965, he applied to the society for gratuity pay and for refund of the security deposit of Rs. 250. The society paid respondent 1 fifteen months' basic pay on 20 January 1966, for the grant of dearness allowance. On 2 February 1966, the society rejected the claim of respondent 1 thereafter, filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the presiding officer, labour court, Madurai, for dearness allowance and for certain other claims. In that petition,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »