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 Management of Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ637
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. This writ petition which is set along with a batch of Writ Petitions, is to quash the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in C.P. No. 278 of 1966. The short facts are that the 2nd respondent representing some of the workers of the petitioner management filed applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for compensation for involuntary unemployment for a period of 45 day, during January to November, 1965 and for a period of 30 days during December, 1965 to February, 1966. The respondent's case was that they were entitled to lay off compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act. But the petitioner contended that there was a settlement or arrangement between its workers and itself in an independent proceeding anterior to the period of involuntary unemployment and such settlement would bind the workers and would consequentially disentitle them, from making a claim under Section 33-C (2). The Labour Court went into the question and fou...
Nagammal and ors. Vs. Nanjammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ358
M. Natesan, J.1. This second Appeal raises an interesting problem in the application of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, The problem has been rendered difficult by the absence of clear legislative guidance. Mulla in his principles of Hindu Law, 12th Edition, remarks on the section:The section requires more explicit and stringent language.2. To state the facts of the case in brief : The suit properties, lands with wells, belonged to one Bomma Naicken who, on his death in August 1958, left surviving his widow and four daughters. Under the Hindu Succession Act, as Class I heirs the four daughters and the widow share the properties equally, each taking a l/5th share. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 in the suit are the three daughters and the 1st defendant is the other daughter. Without reference to her co-heirs, the 1st defendant, under the original of the sale deed Exhibit A-5, dated 11th December, 1959, sold her share in the suit properties to one Pappa Naicken, the 2nd defendant in the suit, f...
In Re: Sambandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ80
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. Sambandam, the appellant herein, was convicted by the VI Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C. No. 7129 of 1967 for offences under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act and under Section 10 (a) of the Government Order No. Ms. 3031 (Home) dated 1st November, 1958. Under the first count he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a fine of Rs. 200 and for the second offence he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The prosecution arose in the following circumstances. Thiru R.K. Nayar, P.W. 1, the Sub Inspector attached to the North Raiding Prohibition Party got information, at the junction of the Mount Road and Vijayaraghavachari road that some person was moving on the road with contraband liquor. He proceeded for some distance, in the road, apprehended the appellant and recovered from him, the tin M.O. 1 which contained 17 bottles of which seven were brandy and 10 were bottles of tincture zingiberis mitis, (M.Os. 2 to se...
P.V. Natarajan Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ410
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The fifth respondent by an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 5th April, 1966, was appointed as the Village Karnam of Kugalur Village in Gobichettypalayam Taluk. The appellant, who was one of the applicants, however, succeeded in his appeal and he was appointed by the District Revenue Officer to the post by an order dated 12th June, 1966. There was a second appeal by the fifth respondent to the Board of Revenue which reversed the order of the District Revenue Officer and restored that of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Board's order having failed he has preferred this appeal.2. So far as the comparative merits of the fifth respondent and of the appellant are concerned, that cannot properly be the subject-matter of review in writ jurisdiction, and, in fact, no attempt has been made for the appellant to review the merits. The only question pressed before us is as to the maintainab...
Mayilsami Gounder Vs. Rammoorthi Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ606
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This revision petition comes before us on a reference made by one of us. The petitioner is the tenant who applied for restoration of possession on an eviction order being reversed, in execution of which, he had been deprived of possession, but, the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.2. The respondent applied for eviction in February, 1960 which was ordered. Since the tenant failed to deposit the rent within the time allowed, the order was put to execution and the landlord entered upon possession in July, 1960. Eventually the revision petition directed against the order of eviction was allowed by this Court on the ground that the respondent should have impleaded the newly inducted tenant. On the strength of this order of reversion, the tenant, who is the petitioner before us, applied for restitution. But the application was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time under the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Madr...
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras and ors. Vs. P.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad212
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment in W. P. Nos. 1744 and 1951 of 1969 rendered by Alagiriswami J. In the first instance it came up before a Division Bench consisting of my Lord, the Chief Justice and Gokulakrishnan J. The Division Bench felt it desirable to place the matter in question arising in they appeals before a Full Bench and observed:'Section 72 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act 1961 calls for interpretation. A Division Bench of this Court, in W. A. No. 113 of 1969 (Mad), has taken a particular view of the scope and effect of it, with which, prima facie, with due respect, we do not find ourselves in agreement. The question is one of importance and will affect all the Co-operative Societies in the State. We consider, therefore, that the matter should be placed before a Full Bench for decision.' The subject having been set once again for hearing before us, we are called upon in the main to consider the scope and content of Se...
Fathima Bi Ammal Vs. A.A. Mahomed Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1969
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ451
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Suit in forma pauperis for partition of plaint properties and for allotment of 1/8th share to the plaintiff. Fathima Bi, the plaintiff, and Abbas Bi Ammal, the fifth defendant, are the daughters of one Moosa Bi Ammal, who died in 1955. Dawood Bi Ammal, the fourth defendant, is the elder sister of Moosa Bi, and her children are defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's children are defendants 6 to 8. The ninth defendant is the husband of the third defendant. The tenth defendant is said to be interested in one of the plaint items as a tenant. The case of the plaintiff is that her mother Moosa Bi was the second wife of Abdul Rahman, the first wife being the fourth defendant, that she and the fifth defendant Abbas Bi, being the daughters of Abdul Rahman by his second wife Moosa Bi, are each entitled to 1/8th share in the estate of Abdul Rahman, who died in January, 1958. On 2nd May, 1958, the plaintiff executed a registered deed of release under Exhibit P-14 in favour ...
Gajendra Transports (P) Ltd., Tiruppur Vs. Anamallais Bus Transports ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad379; (1970)1MLJ568
1. This appeal is from a judgment of Ramakrishnan, J., dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of the second respondent, Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Regional Transport Authority Coimbatore, out of 42 applicants, selected the appellant for grant of a stage carriage permit to ply an additional bus on the route Pollachi to Tiruppur (Via) Kamanaickanpalayam and Palladam. Three of the disappointed applicants preferred appeals to the second respondent, which allowed them and remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, for being proceeded with in accordance with law. The first respondent, which was one of the applicants, had raised a preliminary objection to the introduction of an additional bus on the route, on the ground that it was not given additional trips for its existing buses, and that further a new route bus had also been introduced between Erode and Pollachi (Via) Tiruppur. The Regional T...
City Oil Mill Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram Division ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1969
Reported in: [1970]25STC33(Mad)
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The petition is to quash the assessment order charging sales tax on sales of copra. The point in controversy is as to whether copra can be considered as an oil-seed within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; if it is, it will be declared goods attracting tax only at the specified single point. The actual entry in Section 14 reads :Oil-seeds, that is to say, seeds yielding non-volatile oils used for human consumption, or in industry, or in the manufacture of varnishes, soaps and the like, or in lubrication, and volatile oils used chiefly in medicines, perfumes, cosmetics and the like.2. This language has been reiterated in entry 6 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. In Kannappa Mudaliar v. State of Madras [1968] 21 S.T.C. 41, a Division Bench of this court, to which one of us was a party held that cocoanuts were not oilseeds within the meaning of item 6(a) of the Second Schedule aforesaid. It was pointed out...
In Re: Srinivasan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad512; 1970CriLJ1592
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Mr. Fyzee Mahmood, appearing for accused 1 and 3 in this revision petition argues that the contraband in this case, namely. M. Os. Nos. 1 to 7 contained brandy is not proved in the court of the trial Magistrate, although the appellate Court has acted upon the report of analysis by the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government for Excise and Prohibition. The appellate Court has erred in acting on this document without giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the concerned witness on the relevant report. The appellate court proceeded on the footing that M Os. 1 to 7 contained brandy, a prohibited liquor. This has got to be proved by the author of the analysis report by giving evidence and marking the said document. This infirmity alone vitiates the conviction of the petitioners. I set aside the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences imposed on them and direct retrial of the case. It is open to the petitioners at the conc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »