Chennai Court October 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.
The Ouchterlony Valley Estates (1938) Ltd. Vs. the Regional Provident ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ638
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to forbear from collecting damages under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds Act from the Petitioner for delayed payment of contributions under the said Act and the scheme framed thereunder for the period May,. 1966 to July, 1966.2. From the Very nature of the case the question whether damages should be claimed at all and, if so, what should be the quantum of the damages is one which can be decided only after notice to the person concerned. Apart from that, Section 7-A (3) provides that no order determining the amount due from any employer shall be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, unless the employer is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A states that the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner or any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order, determine the am...
In Re: Pakkirisami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ488
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J. 1. Mr. Venkataraman appearing for the two petitioners (A-2 and A-3) who have been convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 352, Indian Penal Code, assailed the convictions mainly on the ground that the investigation is vitiated by an illegality in that the requirements of Section 155 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, have not been complied with.2. P.W. 6 the Sub-Inspector who appears to have earlier filed charge-sheets for offences under Sections 323 and 341, Indian Penal Code, after investigating the matter, referred the case. Thereafter, he seems to have filed petty case charge-sheets under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. The trial Magistrate, finding the charge-sheets to be defective, returned them, and, by him memo. dated 26th January, 1967, the Sub-Inspector ultimately modified them as those under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 190 (1) (b). It is on this chequered history of filing of the amended charge-sheets continuously that...
M.S. Padmanabha Iyer Vs. Devadass Sylus and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ520
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this Court. The suit was for the recovery of Rs. 2,318-5 nP.due from the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that the first defendant represented to the grandfather of the plaintiff that he was entitled to suit item 1 and the othi right in item 2 to the extent of Rs. 784-94 nP. on the foot of a Court sale in his favour in O.S. No. 902 of 1105 on the file of the District Munsif of Nagercoil and he executed a sale deed of the properties in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiff and the second defendant on 29th September, 1124 corresponding to 4th May, 1949 for Rs. 2,000. He received Rs. 2,000 and gave possession of the two items to Devadasan, the grandfather of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Subsequently O.S. No. 839 of 1951 was filed in District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil, against Devadasan by one Subbiah Mooppanar who claimed title to the two items independently of the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 9...
V. Jayavelu and anr. Vs. Food Inspector, Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: 1971CriLJ122
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellants are accused 1 and 2 in M. P. No. 979 of 1966 on the file of the IV Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras. The appellants were convicted Under Sections 2, 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') read with B. 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The first appellant was released after due admonition Under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and the second appellant was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Ra. 100.2. The prosecution case is briefly this: The first appellant is the servant of the second appellant. The second appellant was a milk vendor. At about 4.10 p.m. on 27-6-1966, in front of premises No, 101 Perumal Mudali St. Sowcarpet, P.W. 1 Jeremiah, Food Inspector, saw the first appellant carrying milk in a can on a cycle. P.W. 1 stopped him and told him that he intended to take a sample from the milk. P. W- 1 purchased 650 milli-litres...
Sivarama Pillai and ors. Vs. Marichami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ376
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a dispute between owners of adjacent lands who also had joint rights in a well. The family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) owned certain items of lands of a total extent of 4 acres and 17 cents which were irrigated by a well situate in the lands. Under a partition arrangement of the year 1952, the properties were divided equally and two items of lands of total extent of 2 acres 3 cents were allotted to the plaintiff and 2 acres and 14 cents were allotted to the defendants. It is common ground that as an integral part of this partition arrangement, both the branches would have equal rights to take water from the well and that that right should be worked out by the plaintiff taking water from the well for three days and the defendants in the next three days thereafter, (not even a case of one party taking for four days and the other party three days in the week). In the nature of th...
South India Flour Mills Private Ltd. Vs. the Regional Director, Employ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ110
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner is the South India Flour Mills Private Limited. In or about the middle of 1964, it commenced the construction of another building in the compound of the existing factory and workmen were engaged for construction of the work. The petitioner alleges that the construction work was of a casual nature and the workmen were not employees within the scope of Section 2 (9) of the Employees State Insurance Act. The respondent Corporation called for particulars regarding the number of persons so engaged in order to enable it to claim the contribution payable by the petitioner. Ultimately the respondent addressed the Collector of Madras to recover a sum of Rs. 10,500 as special contribution on wages paid to building workers from 30th June, 1963 to 30th June 1965 under the Revenue Recovery Act. This writ petition is filed to quash these proceedings.2. The simple contention on behalf of the petitioner is that persons employed for the construction of a buildi...
Sankaranarayana Reddiar Vs. Ramaswami Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ411
M. Natesan, J.1. The dispute in this second appeal relates to an extent of 5 cents of land. The defendant who has failed in both the Courts below, is the appellant. One Subbaraya Reddiar was the owner of S. No. 2215/5D1 of an extent of 1 acre and 10 cents in Moolaikaraipatti Panchayat limits. Under Exhibit A-1 dated 4th November, 1951, he othied an extent of 90 cents in S.No. 2215/5D1 in favour of one Subbammal and another for Rs. 1,000. Under Exhibit B-1, dated 25th September, 1954, the defendant purchased an extent of 25 cents in the southern portion of the property for a sum of Rs. 700. The plaintiffs have purported to purchase under the registered sale deed Exhibit A-2 dated 14th November, 1960 the extent of 90 cents, usufructuarily mortgaged to Subbammal and another, for a sum of Rs. 1,500. Under Exhibit A-3 dated 17th November, 1960, the plaintiffs discharged the usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming that they are entitled to the entire 90 cents in th...
Ganapathi Mudaliar Vs. Ponnuswami Koundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ295
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 120 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirukoilur is the appellant before me. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for themselves and as representatives of the villagers of Elrampattu under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up warps on. both the margins of the north street of Elrampattu Village and thereby causing obstruction and inconvenience to the free flow of traffic along the street. It is also the plaintiffs case that there are 22 houses abutting the north street on the northern side and four houses on the opposite side and that the defendants are causing obstruction in the said north street by spreading out their warps on street margins on either side of the street thus interfering with the right of access of the house owners on either side of the street. The plaintiffs wanted an. injunction for removal of this obstruction on the said street...
T.N. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. T.R. Parameswaran Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ578
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. The defendant who is the landlord is the appellant. About the year 1945, the plaintiff became a tenant of the defendant, of a small piece of vacant land 47' x 21 1/2 and carried on business in sale of firewood, to quote his own words, ' after putting up a firewood depot with zinc sheets covering the top and the sides and with casuarina poles but without any foundation nor walls.' The plaintiff was paying Rs. 25 per month as rent for the site. By March, 1961, the arrears of ground rent came to Rs. 375 and the tenant passed a letter Exhibit B-2 dated 29th March, 1961, acknowledging that the arrears amounted to Rs. 375., that the same would be paid before the end of April, that in default the landlord should take and become the owner of the zinc shed and that the tenant would not raise any objection. The language employed in the letter is to make the landlord the owner of the superstructure if the tenant defaulted to pay the arrears by the end of April. The tenant did...
A. Muthuswami Pillai Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ352
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The administration of Sri Nachiarammal Endowments, Vandiyur, Madurai Taluk, Madurai District, is governed by a scheme settled in O.P.No. 111 of 1953 before the Deputy Commissioner of Religious Endowments at Tanjore, as confirmed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, in A.P. No. 9 of 1956, in O.S. Nos. 60 and 90 of 1956 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, and in A.S. Nos. 156 and 182 of 1958 on the file of this Court. However, certain differences of opinion and disputes seem to have arisen between the petitioner herein and the third respondent herein, with respect to the administration of the Endowment, and, because of these differences, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, for appointment of an Executive Officer and action on that application seems to have been taken by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, who by his order in R.C....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »