Chennai Court August 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.
Sivanandam (S.) Vs. Press Superintendent, Southern Railway, and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ373Mad
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein was employed as a khalasi, starting from 15 June 1964, in the office of the Southern Railway Press for different periods, with intermittent discharges. Finally the petitioner was accorded a temporary status from 1 June 1966, since he was continuously in service from 1 December 1965. Afterwards by a notice dated 22 November 1966, the petitioner was informed that Ms services would not be required with effect from 22 December 1966. Since the nature of the dispensing with the services of the petitioner is itself the subject-matter of the controversy, it is desirable to set out this notice in full.Name of the employer.--M.S. Rao. Dated 22 November 1966.To S. Sivanandam, casual labourer, I.T. No. E. 1362, through F.D.[Subject--Employment of casual labour-Termination of service. 1. Your services will not be required with effect from 22 December 1966 (afternoon) due to completion of work/expiry of sanction.2. You are hereby given a month's notice of...
State Bank of India Vs. V. Venkatachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ118Mad; (1971)IIMLJ208
Ismail, J.1. These writ petitions arise out of a common order passed by the second respondent herein, the Central Government Labour Court, Madras, on petitions filed by the respective first respondent in these writ petitions under Section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The facts are not really in controversy. The question for determination also lies in a very narrow compass. However, source of rights and obligations of the parties was sought to be traced with reference to several awards passed, pursuant to provisions contained in the Act. The first respondent in the respective writ petitions filed petitions under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming overtime wages from the dates on which they were entertained by the petitioner bank as watchmen in several branch offices. The basis on which the claim was made, as contained in the respective claim statements, can be realised from the following passage occurring in the claim statements:The appli...
The Madras State Electricity Board, Represented by Its Secretary Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ126
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant in both these appeals is the Madras State Electricty Board. The short point arising in them is whether the respondent in each of these cases is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. By an order dated 29th April, 1968 the appellant reduced the age of superannuation from 58 to 55 for all 'except those who are eligible to continue till 58 years under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946'. The respondents maintain that they are entitled to the benefit of the exception which Kailasam, J., accepted and quashed the relative orders retiring them on ground for superannuation. The learned Judge came to that conclusion on the main ground that the basic pay of the respondent in each case was below Rs. 500. He also went into the question whether the respondents were employed in a supervisory capacity, but no clear-cut opinion on that matter appears from the order, though observatio...
T. Radhakrishna Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.V. Muthukrishnan Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad337; (1970)2MLJ566
1. Appeal by the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 12 of 1956 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai, against the decree and order of the Principal Subordinate Judge dismissing their I.A. No. 673 of 1960 for a personal decree against the second defendant-respondent. The suit was filed on an equitable mortgage evidenced by a promissory note Ex. A-7 dated 7-2-1950 executed by the first defendant E. N. G. Muthukrishnan Chettiar and renewed by another promissory note Ex. A-8 dated 3-2-1953 three years later by the first defendant and deposit of title deeds of properties belonging to the second respondent K. M. Muthukrishnan Chettiar. There was a usual preliminary decree on 26-2-1957 and a final decree on 11-3-1958. The appellants filed I.A. No. 778 of 1959, on the file of the lower Court, for a personal decree against the first defendant alone to recover the balance of Rs. 10,339-08 with intermit from 30-3-1959, the date of the sale of the hypotheca. They pleaded that by inadvertenc...
Barbara and anr. Vs. Sethurathinam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1721
ORDERK.N. Mudaliar, J.1. The two petitioners seek to revise the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli holding that the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance from the respondent.2. Before the trial Magistrate Barbara Dolly the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1. She deposes that the respondent is her husband, In August 1944 she and the respondent were married. The second petitioner was born to her. She is now 20 years and is living with her. After marriage, she and her husband stayed at Kulithalai as husband and wife. They lived for three years and then went to Madras and stayed at Moosa Sait Street, Mambalam. They moved from Mambalam to Bagirathiammal street and then to Boag Road to the house of Mr. N. S. Quaraishi on a rental of Rs. 120 Exhibit P. 4 is the notice from Mr. N. S. Quaraishi dated 23-11-1961. Exhibits P. 5 and P. 6 are two notices sent to her husband. Mr. Qaaraishi filed a petition (marked Exhibit P. 7) for eviction against t...
P. Susila Represented by Her Father and Next Friend S. Perinpamuthoo V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad399; (1970)2MLJ164
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The petitioners are from the Kanyakumari District and claim to belong to the Church of South India, and originally to South Indian United Church of the erstwhile Travan-core-Cochin State. In G. O. Ms. 1717 dated 12-7-1961, which amended G. O. Ms. 1300 dated 26-7-1957 the C. S. I. Christians of Kanyakumari District and Shenkottah Taluk of Tirunelveli District, were added to and treated as backward class for purposes of educational concessions. G. O. Ms. No. 1013 Health dated 26-9-1968 stated that Rule 5(b) (1) relating to reservation of seats for socially and educationally backward classes was amended to read--'For the purpose of this rule socially and educationally backward classes will mean those classes which are declared as such by Government'In the prospectus issued in respect of the first year Integrated M. B. B. S. course, 1969-70, this particular community has not been mentioned as belonging to the backward class. The result was, all the petitioners were tr...
K.R. Subbier Tape Factory Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ109Mad
Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein runs a factory from 1942 for manufacturing tapes, lampwicks, etc, with more than fifty persons in his employ. At an anterior stage, the petitioner disputed the fact that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), would apply to the firm, and the question was settled only when the Central Government passed an order on 29th September, 1958, under Section 19A of the Act holding that the Act applied to the petitioner's firm. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959 on the file of this Court challenging the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the respondent herein, demanding from the petitioner the payment of (1) the employer's share of the contribution to the provident fund from 1st November, 1952, (the date on which the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Act became applicable to the firm) upto 30th April, 1957, (the date when the peti...
C.G. Kothainayaki Vs. Director of Secondary Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ189Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein was appointed temporarily as a sewing mistress in the Board High School, Nandivaram, Chingleput Taluk, on a salary of Rs. 90 n -r mensem by an order of the Special District Educational Officer, Chingleput District, dated 17-7-64. On 14-6-1966, the same officer passed the following order : 'Inasmuch as she is in possession of the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, the pay of Smt. C. G, Kothainayaki, sewing mistress, Board High School, Nandivaram, is refixed at Rs. 90 per mensem in the scale of Rs. 90-4-110-3-140 with effect from 23-7-1964, I.e., the date of her appointment'. By a subsequent order dated 30-6-1966 she was granted 'maternity leave for two months from 7-10-1965 to 6-12-1965 with permission to avail the school holiday on 7-12-1965'. The same officer, later, also sanctioned annual increments to the petitioner. By a subsequent order dated 2-1-1967 the same Special District Educational Officer declared that the petitioner had ...
K.R. Subbaier, Tape Factory Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ497
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J. 1. The petitioner herein runs a factory from 1942 for manufacturing tapes, lampwicks, etc. with more than fifty persons in his employ. At an anterior stage, the petitioner disputed the fact that the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (XIX of 1952) hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ' would apply to the firm, and the question was settled only when the Central Government passed an order on 29th September, 1958 under Section 19-A of the Act holding that the Act applied to the petitioner's firm. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 888 of 1959 on the file of this Court challenging the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the respondent herein, demanding from the petitioner the payment of (1) the employer's share of the contribution to the Provident Fund from 1st November, 1952 (the date on which the Provident Fund Scheme framed under the Act became applicable to the firm) upto 30th April, 1957, (the date when ...
Sabura Ammal and ors. Vs. Ali Mohamed Nachiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad411; (1970)2MLJ398
1. This appeal is filed by the Plaintiffs 1 and 3 to 5 in O. S. No. 17 of 1956 on the file of the District Court of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. There is a long anterior history of litigation between the principal contestants. Since the scope of the appeal is limited to a few points in controversy, we will refer to the prior history of the litigation, only to the extent it is necessary for the disposal of the appeal.2. The suit properties belonged to one Jainambu Nachial whose only daughter was Sabia Ammal. Both these ladies died of a sudden attack of Cholera on 3-6-1926. It is now beyond dispute that the mother died first and the daughter died afterwards. Jainambu Nachial, before her death, on 19-2-1926, executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter Sabia giving her the properties mentioned in Schedules A to A-3 and B to B-2 of the Plaint. On Sabia's death, the properties settled on her devolved upon her husband Mohamed Ismail Rowther, the first defendant in the suit, as wel...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »