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.
Sambandam (A.R.) Vs. Central Government Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1969
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ422Mad
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein was employed as a cashier in respondent 2 bank in its Cochin branch. The petitioner was suspended on 14 September 1961, pending enquiry into certain charges against him and was dismissed from service on 26 December 1961. The non-employment of the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, and the Industrial tribunal on 12 April 1962, in Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 1962, passed an award holding that the dismissal of the petitioner was unjustified and directing MB reinstatement with back-wages and without break in the continuity of service. After the award, the petitioner was not reinstated, and respondent 2 filed Writ Petition No. 730 of 1962 on the file of this Court against the said award. During the pendency of the writ petition respondent 2 had obtained orders of this Court staying the implementation of the award in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4628 of 1962. The writ petition itself was dismissed by this Cour...
Daturam Devkar Vs. T. Govindarajulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad42
ORDER1. The question of law that arises for consideration in these applications is about the scope and effect of the leave to defend granted under O. VII, Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules. The relevant facts are these, Daturam Devkar, the plaintiff, instituted this suit on 2-3-1968 for recovery of the amount due to him under a promissory note, which, according to him, was executed on 1-1-1968 by the defendants in his favour. The first defendant is a registered firm, of which the partners are defendants 2 to 6. The suit was laid under the summary provisions of the Original Side Rules. After the institution of the suit, the plaintiff filed Appln. No. 926 of 1968 on 2-4-1968 for attachment of certain moveable before judgment. The attachment was ordered on 26-4-1968. When the warrant was taken out for execution on 22-5-1968, defendants 3, 5 and 6 are said to have compromised the matter by submitting to a decree as prayed for and are alleged to have passed a document in that respect to the...
A. George Cornelius Vs. Elizabeth Dopti Samadanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad240
Palaniswamy, J.1. This suit filed by the husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to as the Act raises an Important question about the scope of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner married the respondent on 16th September 1935. He has alleged that after the marriage they lived together for some time when the respondent gave birth to three children, that all the three children are married, that in or about May 1952 when the couple were living at Bhuvanagiri the respondent deserted the petitioner against his will and without reasonable cause and went away, that the enquiries made by the petitioner about the respondent proved futile and that Inasmuch as the respondent's whereabouts are not known from 1952, it should be presumed that she is dead. The petitioner prays that a decree for dissolution of the marriage may, therefore be granted. The respondent could not be served in person and service was effected by substituted service.2. The...
Souriyar and ors. Vs. N. Shanmugasundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1969
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ62
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. It seems to us that the decree of the lower appellate Court which reversed the trial Court's decree cannot be sustained. The plaintiffs are caste Hindus who brought the suit for a declaration that they and their representatives were exclusively entitled to use the suit property for burial and cremation and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants and the persons they represent from using that property for that purpose. Both the Courts have found that the suit site covered by Survey No. 36/8 had been as a matter of fact used exclusively by the caste Hindus and such user by custom has also been established. The trial Court was of the view that the custom was unreasonable in view of the provisions of Act XXII of 1955. But in this respect the lower appellate Court differed. In its view, the custom established could not be said to be unreasonable.2. We are of the view that Section 4(iv) read with Sections 13 and 16 of Act XXII of 1955 leaves no room for do...
S. Marichamy Pillai Vs. Meenakshisundaram Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ406
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This is a very simple case. A Head Constable filed a complaint under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, which is a non-cognizable case before the Special First Class Magistrate. The process was issued to the respondents and as the police officer who filed the complaint was absent on the day when the trial was posted, the respondents were acquitted under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code. It is true under Section 247, Criminal Procedure Code, in a summons case on a private complaint, the absence of the complainant would be sufficient reason for acquitting the accused unless for some other reason the case is adjourned to some other date. This is a peculiar case where the Head Constable filed a complaint which was taken cognizance of under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, but the victims are private parties. It is not known as to why the Head Constable filed a private complaint without referring the victims to file a complaint under Section 323, Indian Pena...
In Re: L.N. Srinivasa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad359; 1970CriLJ1238; (1970)1MLJ405
ORDERK.N. Mudaliar, J.1. On 11-1-1967 the cycle of the son of Srinivasa Chetty was detained by the Municipal Inspector, P. W. 1 for want of a license. The boy went and brought his father who slapped P. W. 1 on his cheek and took away the cycle from him by force. The evidence of P. W. J who proves these facts is corroborated by,P. W. 2. P. W. 3 received the complaint from P. W. 1 and sent P. W, 1 and the complaint to the police station. P, W. 4, the doctor, speaks to the injury sustained by P. W. 1.2. Accepting this evidence, the Additional First Class Magistrate found the 'petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 332, I. P, C.3. P. W. 1 admits In the course of his cross-examination that if the cycle had village licence he would not demand licence and states that the boy Chelapathi, son of the accused, did not tell him that he had village licence. Exhibit D-2 is the village licence for 1966-67 for the second half year. It has been issued in the name of the accused. M. O. 2 is the d...
Chonachalam Pillai and ors. Vs. Sankaranarayana Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ78
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants are defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No. 20 of 1961, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagercoil, and their appeal is against the decree and judgment in the suit allowing the claim of the first respondent-plaintiff ordering their removal from the management of the suit trust, directing them to account for the trust funds in respect of their half share and ordering a scheme to be framed for the suit trust. The first respondent-plaintiff Sankaranarayana Pillai died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have been added as parties.2. Sankaranarayana Pillai filed the suit in the lower Court on the basis that the suit properties belonged to a private family trust and they were endowed in the name of the family idol called Chona Mariyadumperumal Marthanda Vinayakar by one Chona Mariyadumperumal who was the original ancestor of the family in which the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are members. The other defendants are the alienees f...
Swayamprakasam Alias Chidambaranathan Vs. R. Vijayarangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ243
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for partition, O.S. No. 40 of 1941, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, filed by his mother Anjalai Ayal as his next friend. His father Raju Padayachi was the first defendant in the suit and one Rathnam Ayal, another wife of the Raju Padayachi, was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. The other defendants were the alienees from the first defendant. The first defendant remained ex parte in the suit. Some of the debts incurred by the first defendant were attacked in the suit and in support of the said plea, it was urged that he was leading an immoral life by keeping a concubine by name Marudambal through whom he had a son and two daughters. The alienations made by the first defendant were held to be not binding on the petitioner herein and he got a preliminary decree for his half share in the suit properties on 15th December, 1942 and the final decree proceedings are pending. One Vijayarang...
Sulthan Rowther Vs. Malungu Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ227
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner, Sulthan Rowther, was the defendant in S.C. No. 281 of 1952, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, in which a decree was passed against him on 20th December, 1955. The decree-holder filed applications for transmission of the decree to the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, for execution. By order on E.A. No. 7 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, within three years, the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli, transmitted the decree to the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, on 26th January, 1959. Subsequently, the decree holder filed E.P. No. 44 of 1962 on 2nd January, 1962 in the District Munsif Court, Koilpatti, and it was dismissed on 3rd March, 1962 on the ground that the decree was not transmitted to that Court and that the execution proceedings should be taken in the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, and that petition was dismissed as not pressed on 18th March, 1963. The present E.P. No. 88 of 1967 was file...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›