Chennai Court November 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.
Panchayat Union Council, Tirupattur and anr. Vs. C. Tirupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad26
1. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of salary for the period from 10-1-1958 to 26-4-1959. The basis of the claim by plaintiff was that his services as Headmaster were illegally terminated by the Panchayat Board with effect from 10-1-1958, and that the removal order was reversed on appeal and that consequently he was reinstated in service with effect from 27-4-1959. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground, among others, that it did not lie under Section 170 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. This defence was accepted by the trial court which dismissed the suit. The respondent was, however, successful in his appeal. The Panchyat is the appellant in the second appeal. Kailasam J., who heard the second appeal, felt the applicability of the section to the suit raised an important question of construction thereof and it should, therefore, be decided by a Full Bench. The learned Judge was also of the view that the reference was necessary as he thought that Panchayat...
Panchayat Union Council and anr. Vs. C. Tirupathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ572
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The respondent instituted a suit for recovery of salary for the period from 10th January, 1958 to 26th April, 1959. The basis of the claim was that his services as Headmaster were illegally terminated by the Panchayat Board with effect from 19th January, 1958, and that the removal order was reversed on appeal and that consequently he was reinstated in service with effect from 27th April, 1969. The suit was resisted by the appellant on the ground, among others, that it did not lie under Section 170 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. This defence was accepted by the trial Court which dismissed the suit. The respondent was, however, successful in his appeal. The Panchayat is the appellant in the second. appeal. Kailasam, J., who heard the second appeal, felt the applicability of the section to the suit raised an important question of construction thereof and it should, therefore, be decided by a Full Bench. The learned Judge was also of the view that the reference w...
State of Madras Represented by Spl. Tahsildar Regional Engineering Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad353
ORDERRamamurti, J.1. In a batch of Land Acquisition cases, a common judgment was delivered by the trial Court. The State of Madras obtained 12 printed copies of judgment and filed an appeal which (for the sake of convenience) may be referred to as the main appeal. In the other appeals, the memorandum of appeal was accompanied only by a copy of the relevant decree along with a petition to dispense with the production of printed copies of judgment on the ground that in the main appeal, 12 printed copies had been filed. Along with this, a petition has also been filed, in each of these appeals, to excuse the delay, if any, in filing the appeals as they would be barred by limitation if the time taken for obtaining certified copies of the relevant decrees alone is taken into account under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. In all cases, where a common judgment is delivered disposing of a batch of cases, the practice of this court has been to dispense with...
Raghuvir Kumar (Minor) by Next Friend and Mother Smt. D.P. Kamala Kuma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ193
G. Ramanujan, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 69 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in this appeal. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged 3|10th share of A and B schedule items and for past mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per annum from the date of suit till delivery of possession, or in the alternative, for possession of the properties equal in extent and value to that of the properties set out in the will dated 2nd May, 1949 executed by one Palaniswamy Nadar in favour of the first plaintiff. The first and second plaintiffs claimed respectively to be the son and fourth wife of the said Palaniswamy Nadar who died on 5th January, 1960 and the suit came to be filed on that basis. The first defendant is the third wife of Palaniswamy Nadar and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his sons through the first defendant. The fifth defendant is the father of the first defendant and...
R. Murugesan Vs. Union Terrirtory of Pondicherry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ435Mad
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Pondicherry dated November 14, 1967, addressed to the Secretary, Rodier Mills National Workers Union. The said order states.With reference to your letter dated 1st August, 1967 on the subject mentioned above, the list of office-bearers newly elected by your union in the General Body Meeting held on 30th July, 1967 is approved and registered in this office.2. The petitioner herein was the president of the union and on some difference occurring between the petitioner and the other members, according to the allegation of the petitioner, the fourth respondent herein purported to convene a meeting of the General Body of the union on July 30, 1967, at which the petitioner was suspended from membership for a period of five years. The petitioner contends that general meeting was not properly convened, because even prior to that meeting, the fou...
The Self-respect Sangam, Erode by President, E.V. Ramaswami Naicker Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ367
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This Second Appeal came to be filed in the following circumstances:There was a suit, O.S. No. 58 of 1943, filed by the appellant herein (plaintiff) on the file of the District Munsif of Erode for partition of his 3/4th share in the suit property, which he acquired by right of purchase under two sale deeds dated 4th March, 1942, and 14th May, 1942 against the defendant who claimed the other 1/4th. share. There was a preliminary decree for partition on 17th August, 1943. In C.M.P.. No. 816 of 1943 a final decree dated 5th April, 1944, was passed by the trial Court in pursuance of the said preliminary decree which allotted the eastern 3/4th share to the plaintiff and the western 1/4th share to the defendant. Against the said- final decree, both the parties have filed appeals to the District Court, Coimbatore in A.S. Nos. 305 and 327 of 1944. There was an order of remand in the above two appeals by the District Court on 13th December, 1944 directing the trial Court to co...
N. Muthiah Achary and Sons Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad346; [1970]25STC350(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This tax ase is directed against the order of the Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. 103 of 1963. The assessment relates to the year 1960-61. The petitioners who are contractors and dealers, submitted a quotation to Messrs. Cannon Dunkerley and Go. Madras, Pvt. Ltd., to provide and fix doors and window frames for certain quarters to be constructed by the aforesaid company. There is no written contract evidencing the bargain between the parties. While quoting for the works, the assessee sent up to the company a memo which reads as follows--'Providing and fixing best Indian teak wood frames only for doors, windows, ventilators, etc., including the cost of timber, labour charges, delivery charges etc., complete, but Inclusive of the cost of clamps.'This quotation was accepted by M/s. Cannon Dunkerley & Co. which directed the assessees to take details from their site representative and put the work on hand. The assessees having undertaken the work completed ...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax Vs. Tipperary Estates Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: [1970]76ITR396(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The revenue aggrieved against the order of theMadras Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in AppellateTribunal Appeal No. 131 of 1964, have come up to this court in revision.Messrs. Tipperary Estates Company, Yercaud, Salem District, is a partnership firm. Besides the partners, who associated themselves in the firm,there was a managing partner. Under the terms of the partnership themanaging partner, because of certain functions undertaken by him, was tobe paid a salary of Rs. 6,000 per year. Another partner, Sri V. Natarajan,was paid a sum of Rs. 2,150, since he undertook to supervise the estate andattend to its field work. The Tribunal had also noted that there were stranger partners in the firm and none has raised any objection to the payment of such salary to one of the partners, because he rendered actual service to the estate. The firm claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,150 made up of the salary paid to the managing partner as well as the pa...
The Tirunelveli TuticorIn Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. the Industrial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ304Mad
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. On 3-11-1965, the Engineer in charge of the petitioner-company gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Tuticorin, stating that the copper conductors used for the street lighting main were found missing. Residents of that locality gave a complaint that the conductor was removed on 30-10-65 at about 10 hours and one Balasubramaniam, a resident of that locality, gave the complainant information that one of the petitioner's employees was also present while the conductor was being removed from the pole and that the said Balasubramaniam could identify that employee. The Engineer in charge of the company requested the Inspector to register a case and take up investigation in the matter. On 13-12-1965, the petitioner received an intimation from the Sub-Inspector of Police stating that the second respondent herein who was employed as a Street Light Scout under the petitioner was arrested on 9-12-65 at 5 p. m. in connection with the theft of copper wire ...
Elumalai Vs. Management of Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ454Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Originally this writ petition was filed by 72 persons against a common order of the Labour Court, Madras dismissing their respective petitions filed under under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Kailasam, J., by an order dated March 27, 1967, held that a single writ petition by the 72 persons was not maintainable and each one of them will have to file a separate petition, since the cause of action and the rights agitated were different. After the order of Kailasam, J., the writ petition was filed by one of the 72 persons, namely, Elumalai, with the result, as far as the other 71 persons are concerned, they are not before this Court and any conclusion or result of this petition will be only with reference to the claim of Elumalai.2. The claim petition filed by the petitioner here was C.P. No. 189 of 1966 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras. The claim in that petition was for the payment of retrenchment compensation of Rs. 421.00, one month's no...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »