Chennai Court March 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.
Radio and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ206Mad
ORDERAlagiriswami, J.1. The first writ petition is by the management and the second by the workers to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, The petitioner company had two sections doing two types of work. One was concerned with radio and electricals and the other section was called the mechanical section. On April 30, 1965, they sent a notice, found at page 23 of the typed papers, as follows:ToAll Retrenched Workers,We regret to state that due to the continuous losses, it is proposed to economise expenditure and avoid futher losses of the company. We have, therefore, decided to restrict our activities by closing down the tank section, comprising of tanks making, tanks testing, tanks cleaning, switches assembly, core clamp fabrication and mechanical accessories.You are therefore informed that in pursuance of the above decision, your services will be terminated with effect from May 1, 1965. In addition to your normal wages up to date you will be paid a month's pay in lieu o...
Khadar Basha Vs. K. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ530
ORDERS. Ganesan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment of of the District Munsif, Erode in S.C.S. No. 532 of 1967. On 25th March, 1967, the petitioner herein filed the suit on the foot of a promissory note dated 30th March, 1964, and it was stated in the original plaint that the respondent-defendant took a loan of Rs. 300 from the petitioner and executed a promissory note on 30th March, 1964, promising to pay back the principal and interest on demand, and, in the cause of action column, it was merely stated that the cause of action arose on the date in question in a village within the jurisdiction of the Court. On 30th March, 1967, the office returned the plaint with a querry how the suit was maintainable on an insufficiently stamped promissory note. On 13th April, 1967, the plaint was re-presented with the following endorsement: ' As the document is insufficiently stamped, this suit is filed on the original cause of action.'2. No plea of limitation wa...
S.P. Krishna Rao Vs. Thimurshakhan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad135; (1969)2MLJ241
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The learned Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, relying upon the decision in Munuswami v. Viswanathan Nair, : AIR1957Mad773 . allowed a petition under Section 60(h) of the Civil Procedure Code in execution of a decree for money by attaching the bonus of the respondent who is reported to be a mechanic. But Mr. Ramasubramaniam, brought to my notice the latest judgment of Veeraswami, J., in C. R. P. No. 1952 of : (1969)IILLJ159aMad , Ganapathi Pillai v. Swaminatha Pillai who held that payment of bonus is a method of payment of wages. He also observed;'No doubt, payment of bonus is conditional upon payment of wages. But once bonus is paid, it has the true attribute of wages.'Here, he relied upon a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in P. Nathmal V. Dasarath, AIR 1959 Mys 96. It has to be noted that this judgment was rendered after the passing of the Madras Payment of Bonus Act of 1985. There has been chameleonic changes in the law of bonus having rega...
The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ19
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This appeal is instituted by the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi, and the General Manager, Telephones, Madras from the judgment of our learned brother Venkatadri, J., in W.P. No. 2122 of 1966, striking down the recently enhanced Telephone tariff. I might immediately state that the entire Judgment proceeds upon two bases, or comprehensive considerations, both of which have now become academic, or inapplicable. Firstly, in striking down this enhancement of the tariff the learned Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the increased revenue, thereby secured, was sought to be utilised to cover the deficits in the Posts and Telegraph Department. The learned Judge thought that this was illegitimate and inadmissible. To quote:The Posts and Telegraphs Department consists of various units, such as postal, telegraph, radio and telephone units. Each department or wing is a separate unit by itself, with regard to ...
P.S. Venkatachalapathy Iyer and Sons, Through One of Its Partners Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ56
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. No question of law or error of jurisdiction arises in both the civil revision petitions. No doubt the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, has committed certain errors in characterising a payee of a holder in due course which is unknown to law merchant. That apart, I have looked into the records and heard Mr. O. V. Baluswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is the first defendant in the action. Both the revision petitions arise out of suits filed by the first respondent against the petitioner as the first defendant and the second respondent as the second defendant. The parties will hereinafter be described as plaintiffs and defendants. The first defendant had dealings with the second defendant and he was admittedly advancing monies in connection with such business dealings. On 2nd December, 1964, the first defendant gave a post-dated cheque dated 5th January, 1965, in one case and on 7th December, 1964 a similar post-dated cheque dated 12th January, 1965...
E.C. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. V.K. Chennimalai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ341
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff, aggrieved against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Erode, who dismissed his suit as being barred by limitation, has come up to this Court on revision. The petitioner filed the suit on the foot of a promissory note, Exhibit A-1 and he relied upon a payment of Rs. 100 made by the respondent which was admittedly sent by money order. Exhibit A-2 is the money-order coupon for Rs. 100 sent by the respondent. It was sent on 16th July, 1962. It simply shows that a sum of Rs. 100 was sent by the respondent to the petitioner. On a consideration of the merits of the case, the lower appellate Court found that the sum of Rs. 100 was so sent towards the suit promissory note debt and not towards another loan as contended by the respondent. The appellate Court, however, found as a fact that the sum of Rs, 100 sent by money order by the respondent was received by the petitioner or 18th July, 1962 and therefore held that the payment should be deemed ...
In Re: N. Kasinathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ458
ORDERN. Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The revision petition has been filed by the two approvers in P.R.C No. 3 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the District Magistrate, South Arcot, against the order of the said Magistrate dismissing their application for cancelling the pardon tendered to them and permitting them to be arrayed as accused along with others.2. What happened in this case is this: The two revision petitioners were arrested in June, 1968 for an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by them along with some others for having obtained permits for sugar, maida and wheat and taken delivery of the same on false representations. Subsequently, they gave confessional statements before the Magistrates and later pardon was tendered to them on condition that they would make a clean breast of all the circumstances of the case. On the assurance given by the petitioners, they were removed from the list of the accused and taken as approvers for the purp...
Deputycommissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. Khanna Aut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC153(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. This petition is filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Madras, for a review of our judgment in T.C. No. 127 of 1964 delivered on 13th April, 1967. This application for review is under Section 38(8) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and was filed on 11th April, 1968. The question that arose before us for decision was whether the sales of motor spare parts by a particular dealer should be assessed or exempt from assessment as second sales. The dealer's accounts of sales in respect of spare parts bought inside the State from other dealers and spare parts bought from outside the State were not found to be reliable. The department assessed the sales as first sales adopting a ratio from purchases inside the State to total purchases. The basis of the decision was that while the dealer's accounts regarding purchases were acceptable, the accounts regarding sale of locally purchased products and products purchased from outside the State were not acc...
Thayammal Vs. Muthuswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad282
Kailasam, J. 1. This appeal is preferred in forma pauperis by the plaintiff in the suit for past and future maintenance against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming a sum of Rs. 72,000/- by way of arrears of maintenance upto the date of suit, and sum of Rs. 24,000/- per annum by way of future maintenance and for a charge over the suit properties for payment of arrears and future maintenance. The plaintiff is the widow of Ramaswami Gounder. Defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers of the plaintiff's husband. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the second defendant and defendants 5 to 7 are the sons of the third defendant. Pending appeal in this Court, the third defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. Defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff's husband were members of the Hindu joint family. Plaintiff's husband died about twelve years before suit without any issues. The family owned about 370 acres of land in Kerala ...
Boormal Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ485
N. Krishnaswami Reddy, J.1. The appellant, Boormal was convicted under Section 135 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 126-P (2) (ii) and (iv) of Gold Control Rules and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months under each of the two counts and in addition, he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under the second count, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate Madras by his judgment dated 14th March, 1967.2. The prosecution case is briefly this : On information that one Champalal residing at 2/65, Ponnappa Chetty Street, Park Town, Madras, was illicitly trafficking in foreign gold, P.W. 1, Sri R. Srinivasan, Inspector of Central Excise with the assistance of other officers raided the said premises at about 9 a.m. on 12th January. 1965 after having obtained search warrant from the Gazetted Officer of the Department. The said premises was searched in the presence of P.Ws 3 V.K. Kupparchari who was having his goldsmith shop opposite to the premises of Champal...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »