Chennai Court January 1969 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.
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ249Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the management of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd, Vadapathimangalam, Tanjore District. The first respondent is the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The 2nd respondent is the secretary of the employees' union of the petitioner management. The third respondent is another labour union and there is also a third union impleaded as the 4th respondent, Arooran Sugar Factory and Farm Workers Union, Vadapathimangalam. The dispute which has to be considered for decision in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari arises under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is a public limited company with a capital of rupees one crore, formed in 1954. It acquired a large area of waste land, nearly 5200 acres in extent, in Tanjore District in the neighbourhood of its sugar factory for the purpose of cultivation of sugar-cane to meet the needs of the factory for production of sugar. Sugar-cane is c...
Dhanuskoti and ors. Vs. State of Madras Represented by Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ224
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These petitions arise out of the application filed by Rev. Fr. Mathew D. Muttom, Director, Catholic Vivasaya Sangam, T. Sindalachery Village, Madurai District, under Sections 111 and 112 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, and the orders passed thereon by the Uthamapalayam Panchayat Union Council, the Collector of Madurai and the State of Madras.2. In February 1965, Rev. Fr. Mathew D. Muttom applied to the Commissioner of the Uthamapalayam Panchayat Union Council for approval of the use of a site for running a flour mill. On 29th June 1965 T. Sindalahery Panchayat by a resolution sanctioned the establishment of a flour mill. On 17th July, 1965, the District Health Officer, Madurai approved the site proposed for the installation of the electric motor and on 20th August, 1965, the Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Uthamapalayam, informed Rev. Fr. Mathew D. Muttom that necessary steps may be taken to remit the installation fees and get orders before installing the ma...
V.M. Nissar Ahmed and ors., Minors by Guardian and Next Friend V.C. Ab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ512
M. Natesan, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of the same partnership action and present a common case against the decision of the Courts below. The principal grievance relates to the trade-mark and goodwill of the partnership business, which it is submitted, are very substantial assets. While the trial Court held that the good will and trade mark of the partnership are assets of the partnership shared by the deceased partner under whom the appellants claim and the other partner, the sixth defendant in the case who deed pending the appeal, the appellate Court set as de this finding and declared the sixth defendant to be solely entitled to the trade mark and goodwill of the partnership. Closely connected with the right to the goodwill and trade mark of the firm is the question whether the partnership is a partnership at will, and if there is a dissolution of the partnership what is the date of the dissolution.2. First, to set down briefly certain essential facts : One Abdul Rashee...
Dayagee Agarwal Vs. Engineering Metal and General Workers' Union (by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1969
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ367Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The point in controversy in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a brief one. The petitioner is the proprietor of a concern called Hospital Equipment (Manufacturing) Company. Respondent 1 is the Engineering Metal and General Workers' Union, represented by its president. According to the contention in the affidavit of the management, five workers, Subramaniam, Venkatesan, Mahalingam, Devaraj and Thangaraj, on the expiry of their sick leavs, were due to join duty on certain dates specified, in May 1865 bat they did not join their duty on those dates or at any subsequent time. They absented themselves without leave. Subsequently respondent 1 union on their behalf wrote a letter on 15 May 1965 containing a false allegation that when the workers reported for work the management refused to give them employment and sent them away. The management duty replied to the communication on 25 May 1965 denying the allegation. Correspondence then ensued be...
The Corporation of Madras, by Its Commissioner Vs. N. Jayammal and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ189
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The civil revision petition and the appeal can be dealt together. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chingleput, heard the petitions of the widow and mother of a deceased person by name Ramadoss who was involved in a fatal accident on 5th October, 1965, when he was travelling in the jeep belonging to the Corporation of Madras. It is common ground that Ramadoss was travelling in the said jeep not in the capacity as a workman of the Corporation of Madras, but as a person who was allowed to board the jeep for being carried from one place to another with the consent of one of the officers of the Corporation. No doubt Ramadoss, was an employee of the Corporation of Madras. But, at the time when he was travelling in the jeep, it cannot be said that he was in the course of the employment of the Corporation of Madras.2. As the accident referred to above resulted in the death of Ramadoss, his widow Susila and his mother Jayammal filed petitions before the Motor Accide...
State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Madras and ors. Vs. T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad27; (1969)2MLJ443
Sadasivam, J.1. These civil revision petitions have been directed by the learned Chief Justice to be posted before this Division Bench as they involve two questions of law of some importance, namely, whether Section 3 of the Government Grants Act of 1895 (originally called the Crown Grants Act) prevails over the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 3 of 1922, and whether the State of Madras is bound by the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act unless this is expressly stated to. that effect in the Act.2. These civil revision proceedings arise out of petitions filed by four timber merchants carrying on business in Basin. Bridge Road, Madras for fixation of fair rent under Section 7 (a) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 1922. It is an undisputed fact that the lands on which the timber depots are kept belong to the State of Madras and they have been leased out by the Corporation to the several timber merchants. The Government allowed the Corporation ...
The State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madras Vs. T.M. O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1969
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ443
Sadasivam, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been directed by the learned Chief Justice to be posted before this Division Bench as they involve two questions of law of some importance, namely, whether Section 3 of the Government Grants Act of 1895 (originally called the Crown Grants Act) prevails over the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, III of 1922, and whether the State of Madras is bound by the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, unless this is expressly stated to that effect in the Act.2. These Civil Revision proceedings arise out of petitions filed by four timber merchants carrying on business in Basin Bridge Road, Madras, for fixation of fair rent under Section 7 (a) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922. It is an undisputed fact that the lands on which the timber depots are kept belong to the State of Madras and they have been leased out by the Corporation to the several timber merchants. The Government allowed the Corporat...
N.S.M. Adaikappa Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ115
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This application raises a question of the application of Section 49 (4) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, III of 1909. The facts giving rise to the application are these. One Anjali Devi was adjudicated insolvent on a creditor's petition in I. P. No. 12 of 1965. A partnership by name, Messrs. Anjali Pictures consisting of Anjali Devi and her husband P. Audinarayana Rao as partners, was adjudicated insolvent in I. P. No. 25 of 1965. Her personal estate was sold and after paying the secured and the preferential creditors, a sum of Rs. 2,24,624-45 is available. (Vide the report dated 29th September, 1968, of the Deputy Official Assignee).2. The assets of the partnership were sold and only a balance of Rs. 95,308-90 is available from which a dividend of 6 1/2 paise in the rupee can be paid besides the dividend 5 paise already paid.3. Certain persons have proved in the insolvency of P. Anjali Devi, as her personal creditors and the amount necessary for pay...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›