Chennai Court August 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.
Madura Sugars Staff Union Vs. State of Madras (by Secretary, Industrie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ422Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed fey Madurai Btgars Staff Union, PandlarajApnram. representing the workman of Madnral Sugars and Allied Products, Ltd., praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1, the State of Madras, to make a reference to the labour court for adjudication under Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act on certain points of difference which had arises between the workers and the management aforesaid. It appears that during the pendency of the labour dispute; there was an attempt at conciliation and that conciliation failed. The conciliation officer's report was taken up by the Government for consideration and the Government in its order G.O.B. No. 2658, dated 2 December 1964, Department of Industries. Labour and Co-operation, summarized the three points in controversy and given reasons as to why the Government was satisfied with the preservation of the status QUO w...
K.R. Krishnaswami, Superintendent, Junior Technical School, Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ348
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. In this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus, we have to consider whether the petitioner was reduced in rank as per the rules and regulations and conditions of service, and whether the impugned order was passed on an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the Rules.2. The writ petitioner entered Government service in the year 1945 and was in charge of teaching and training students in the Government Cinematography and Sound Engineering Section. Before he joined Government Service, he had served as a Cameraman for four years in Motion Picture Producers Combine Limited; While he was working as Cinema Assistant in the Central Polytechnic, he was appointed as Maintenance Engineer, Films Divisions, Bombay, with effect from 29th November, 1954, and, in his place, one B. Sivathanu Pillai, much junior to the petitioner, was appointed. While he was employed as Maintenance Engineer, Films Division, Bombay, the Government of ...
Madura Sugars Staff Union, Representing the Workmen of Madura Sugars a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ456
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Madurai Sugars Staff Union, Pandiarajapuram, representing the workmen of Madurai Sugars and Allied Products Limited praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the State of Madras, to make a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication under Sections 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act on certain points of difference which had arisen between the workers and the management aforesaid. It appears that during the pendency of the labour dispute there was an attempt at conciliation and that conciliation failed. The Conciliation Officer's report was taken up by the Government for consideration and the Government in its order G.O. Rt. No. 2658, dated 2nd December, 1964, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, summarised the three points in controversy and given reasons as to why the Government was satisfied with the preservation of the status qu...
Madurai Nayagamma and ors. Vs. Plantian Merchants Association, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ386
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. The question that has been referred to this Bench by Alagiriswami, J., isWhether an order of eviction obtained against a chief tenant could be executed by evicting the sub-tenants who were not made parties to the application for eviction.2. The petitioners obstructed delivery of possession in the execution application filed by the respondent-landlord, who had obtained an order of eviction against the chief tenant before the Rent Controller in H.R.C. No. 544 of 1964. The petitioners were not made parties to the application for eviction by the respondent-landlord filed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act.3. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is based on Section 26 of the Act which is as follows:Any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub-tenants, who were made parties in the application for eviction but any person who became a sub-tena...
Bhagavathi Mudaliar Vs. N. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad317
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The only question which is involved in this revision proceeding is whether an amount of Rs. 500 which was paid at the initial stage of an agreement to convey properties between the parties, represents an advance simpliciter, or has any tinge of the character of a deposit for due performance of the contract, or earnest money. If the amount of Rs. 500 is only an advance, the plaintiff (revision petitioner) was bound to succeed in his suit. If it could be conceivably held that the amount of Rs. 500 could be regarded, notwithstanding the mere nomenclature in the document the absence of a forfeiture clause, or the absence of any other indication in the evidence, as a deposit for the due performance, or earnest money, then the plaintiff will have to fail. '' The Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff, and he is the revision petitioner here.2. For an important reason I am not now proceeding into the one question of fact decided by the courts below, that tim...
Kishinchand Chellaram and ors. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC367(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions, the main question arising for consideration is whether Terylene, Terene, Dacron, Nylon, Nylex etc., would come within the expression ' artificial silk ' which occurs as item 4 in the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and therefore exempt from sales tax. Main arguments were addressed in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, and as the point for consideration in all the writ petitions in this batch is the same, we intend considering the respective contentions of the parties as urged before us in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966. It is not in dispute that notices, which were similar to those issued in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, were issued to the other writ petitioners in this batch of petitions, and therefore we intend passing a common order considering the contentions of the respective counsel for either side in the main W.P. No. 2927 of 1966.2. The petitioner in this case has made the assessing officer as the 1st respondent, the St...
Ramanujam (G.) Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ299Mad
Kailasam, J.1. The petition is filed by the Assistant Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, for the records connected with the order of the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras, dated 29 April 1965, dismissing the petitioner form service as confirmed by the order of the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay, dated 3 December 1965.2. The petitioner joined the New India Assurance as organizer in the year 1955 and was absorbed in the said Corporation as a Development Officer when the Corporation was established in 1956. He was promoted as Class I Officer in September 1962. The petitioner was served with a charge memorandum containing two charges on 20 November 1964. He filed a written statement to the charge memorandum on 3 December 1964, denying the charges. On 16 December 1964, Sri S.T.V. Chari was appointed as enquiry officer. On 12 January 1965, the Divisional Manager framed an additional charge and an enquiry was conducted be...
G. Ramanujam Vs. the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ21
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J. 1. The petition is filed by the Assistant Branch Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the order of the Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras, dated 29th April, 1965, dismissing the petitioner from service as confirmed by the order of the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay, dated 3rd December, 1965.2. The petitioner joined the New India Assurance as organiser in the year 1955 and was absorbed in the said Corporation as a Development Officer when the Corporation was established in 1956. He was promoted as Class I officer in September, 1962. The petitioner was served with a chrarge memo containing two charges on 20th November, 1964. He filed a written statement to the charge memo on 3rd December, 1964, denying the charges. On 16th December, 1964, Sri S.T.V. Chari, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 12th January, 1965, the Divisional M...
Kishinchand Chellaram and ors. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ229
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the main question arising for consideration is whether Terylene, Terene, Decron, Nylon, Nylex, etc. would come within the expression ' artificial silk ' which occurs as item 4 in the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales-Tax Act, 1959 and therefore exempt from sale-tax, main arguments were addressed in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, and as the point for consideration in all the writ petitions in this batch is the same, we intend considering the respective contentions of the parties as urged before us in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966. It is not in dispute that notices which were similar to those issued in W.P. No. 2927 of 1966, were issued to the other writ petitioners in this batch of petitions, and therefore we intend passing a common order considering the contentions of the respective Counsel for either side in the main W.P. No. 2927 of 1966.2. The petitioner in this case has made the assessing officer as the first respondent, the State ...
M. Pitchaiah Reddiar and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ44
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed by persons who are running hotels within the municipal limits of Madurai, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the Municipal Council, Madurai represented by the Commissioner, relating to its resolution No. 2413, dated 28th December, 1965, and published in the Madurai District Gazette Supplement, dated 8th January, 1966 and quash the same in so far as it relates to Hotels.2. By the impugned resolution as published in the Gazette persons who were carrying on business as mentioned in the notification were required to pay a licence fee as specified in the notification and to conduct their business according to the conditions laid down in the licence. The notification is purported to have been made by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 249 (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Clause (j) relates to hotels and a licence fee is prescribed according to the a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »