Chennai Court September 1967 Judgments
Perumal Naicker Vs. T. Ramaswami Kone and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad346
1. This appeal, under the Letters Patent, is from the Judgment of yenkatadri, J., by which he reversed the decree of the appellate Court below him and decreed the suit. The first respondent having defaulted in repayment of a loan obtained from the State, the second respondent, under the provisions of the Land Improvement Loans Act, the Fetter Engine and pump-set, which the first respondent had purchased out of the funds provided by the loan, were attached in recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and brought to sale. The appellant was the purchaser. He was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, which was to set aside the sale on the ground, among others, that the engine being a permanent fixture to the land, it was an immovable property, and that in the recovery proceedings the procedure applicable to such property having not been applied, the sale itself was invalid. The first two Courts below differed in their view as to the nature of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Janardhanam (S.) Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ507Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The only point involved in this writ appeal relates to the application of Section 41(1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (36 of 1947) to the facts of the case as appearing in the record. Admittedly, the employer organization (the Madras State Electricity Board) cannot dispense with the services of even a temporary employee, like the writ appellant though recruited as such, and on the basis of liability to termination of employment at any time, except within the terms of Section 41(1). That necessarily implies two contingencies which are very clear from the section itself. One is that such an employee, whose services are dispensed with is entitled to ' at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice.' The second is that his services ought to be dispensed with, only for a ' reasonable cause,'2. Now, obviously, the question whether in a given case there was such ' reasonable cause,' or otherwise is a question of fact. It cannot be a, questi...
Tag this Judgment!Madrasai Nusrathul Islam Trust, by Managing Trustee M.A. Md. Ismail Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ77
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this writ petition, the necessity has arisen to interpret the provisions of Section 3 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in regard to a part of it, introduced for the first time in 1960, and for whose interpretation there is no clear authority. The circumstances have arisen in the following way.2. The petitioner is a trust, and premises No. 12, Muthucattan Street, Periamet, Madras, belongs to the trust. The last tenant of the premises was one Gaughan, who vacated it on 12th August, 1963. Section 3 CO (a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Madras Act XVIII of 1960) hereinafter called the Act, makes it obligatory that every landlord shall, within 7 days after the building becomes vacant, by the termination of tenancy, give notice of the vacancy in writing to the officer authorised in that behalf by the Government, which, in this case, is the Accommodation Controller, the respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Naicker Vs. T. Ramaswsmi Kone and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ493
K. Veeraswami, J. 1. This appeal, under the Letters Patent, is from the judgment of Venkatadri, J., by which he reversed the decree of the appellate Court below him and decreed the suit. The first respondent having defaulted in repayment of a loan obtained from the State, the second respondent, under the provisions of the Land Improvements Loan Act, the Petter engine and pump-set, which the first respondent had purchased out of the funds provided by the loan, were attached in recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and brought to sale. The appellant was the purchaser. He was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, which was to set aside the sale on the ground, among others, that the engine being a permanent fixture to the land, it was an immovable property, and that in the recovery proceedings the procedure applicable to such property having not been applied, the sale itself was invalid. The first two Courts below differed in their view as to the n...
Tag this Judgment!S. Janardhanan Vs. the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ131
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The only point involved to this writ appeal relates to the application of Section 41(1) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (XXXVI of 1947) to the facts of the case as appearing in the record. Admittedly, the employer organisation (the Madras State Electricity Board) cannot dispense with the services of even a temporary employee, like the writ appellant though recruited as such, and on the basis of liability to termination of employment, at any time, except within the terms of Section 41(1). That .necessarily implies two contingencies which are very clear from the section itself. One is that such an employee, whose services are dispensed with is entitled to at least one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. The second is that his services ought to be dispensed with, only for a 'reasonable cause.'2. Now, obviously, the question whether in a given case there was such 'reasonable cause,' or otherwise is a question of fact. It cannot be a qu...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nagalakshmi Vs. Mannargudi Transports (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad317
ORDER(1) Petitioner B. Nagalakshmi claiming herself to be a contributory, and therefore a member, file this petition under Secs. 433(b) and (f) and 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act, I of 1956, asking for the winding up of the company Mannargudi Transport (Pvt.) Ltd. The relevant facts are as follows:--(2) The petitioner was originally allotted 125 shares at a meeting held in July 1959; but on 23-7-1960, all the 125 shares of the petitioner were transferred to the 2nd respondent, and thereafter the petitioner ceased to be a member of the company. Her husband Balasubramania Odayar had a total shareholding of 400 shares. It appears that after the death of Balasubramania Odayar there were some disputes about the heirs of Balasubramania Odayar and the petitioner was claiming the entire 400 shares to be transferred in her name. The 2nd respondent who is the mother of Balasubramania Odayar, is also another heir entitled to share in the estate of Balasubramania Odayar.It appears that till now no...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumar Bhagwatsaran Vs. Commissioner of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ219
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Petitioner Rajakumar Bhagwatsaran has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes Madras City, dated 3rd August. 1964 under Section 51A of the Madras City Police Act. The notice is in the following terms:Whereas information containing the allegations set out below for taking action under Section 51-A, Madras City Police Act, has been laid before me by Sri Siva sankaran, Detective Sub-Inspector of Police, Royapuram, P.S. Madras City in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 51-A, City Police Act, 1888, I Sri S. Palaniappan, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Madras City, call upon you to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice as to why you should not be directed to remove yourself out of Madras City or why you should not be directed to conduct yourself in the manner as m...
Tag this Judgment!Solomon Devasahayam Selvaraj Vs. Chandriah Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ289
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act by a husband for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. The parties are Indian Christians. They were married on 26th May, 1955. The husband was then living with his brother and his family and the wife was taken to that house. Soon after about the middle of July, 1355, the wife was taken to her parents' house for the month of 'Adi' as is usual in the south in the case of newly married brides. She came back to the husband's house not at the end of Adi but much later. It appears that the wife used to go to her parents' house off and on and once the husband's brother's father-in-law had to go and persuade the wife's parents to send her to her husband's house and another time one Rev. Chinniah had to be approached. Ultimately in 1959, the wife filed a petition before the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance. As a result of what happened in the...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. Home Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1970Mad48
1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment just delivered by my learned brother. I entirely agree with him, not merely on the conclusion that the appeals ought to be allowed, but also on the grounds upon which that conclusion has to be based.2. It may, hence, appear somewhat superfluous that I should write a separate judgment, however, condensed. But I am impelled to do so, for an important reason. It is possible to present the central argument that Mr. V. Thyagarajan has sought to put forward, in these appeals, as the horns of a dilemma. Presented in that form, the argument has the merit of great plausibility, at least on the first scrutiny. It is for this reason that I propose to tersely examine the links, in the logical chain of this argument, and to demonstrate that our conclusion follows as the correct one, even conceding the plausibility.3. The process of reasoning is best expressed, I think, in the following form. Is there a suit known to law by an insurer, as in this c...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of the Port of Madras, Represented by the Chairman, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ497
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment just delivered by my learned brother. I entirely agree with him, not merely on the conclusion that the appeals ought to be allowed, but also on the grounds upon which that conclusion has to be based.2. It may, hence, appear somewhat superfluous that I should write a separate judgment, however condensed. But I am impelled to do so, for an important reason. It is possible to present the central argument that Mr. V. Thyagarajan; has sought to put forward, in these appeals, as the horns of a dilemma. Presented in that form, the argument has the merit of great plausibility, at least on the first scrutiny. It is for this reason that I propose to tersely examine the links, in the logical chain of this argument, and to demonstrate that our conclusion follows as the correct one, even conceding the plausibility.3. The process of reasoning is best expressed, I think, in the following form. Is there a suit known to law by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »