Chennai Court January 1970 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.
S.N. Pachamuthu Nadir Vs. Tillaiyadi Pillar Temple Charity and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad253
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The appellant is the defendant in O. S. No. 3 of 1961, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The respondent-plaintiff in the suit is the Thillayadi Pillayar Temple Charity by its Interim trustee, M. S. Pandian. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties with Rs. 4000 as past profits, and future mesne profits. The plaint-allegations are these. The suit properties originally belonged to one Rethinam Pillai. He executed a registered Will on 21-11-1918. bequeathing his properties to a charity and to various legatees and appointing his widow Sundarambal Achi as executor and trustee. Shortly after his death, Velusami Pillai, claiming to be his undivided brother, challenged the Will in the suit O. S. 70 of 1919 Sub-Court, Nagapattinam (which was subsequently numbered as O. S. 103 of 1921, after transfer and retransfer again to Sub-Court, Nagapattinam). There was a compromise in this suit and a decree was ...
Soumyanarayanan Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ427
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, directing the appellant, who had previously divorced his wife, the respondent, to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 65 per mensem.2. Soumyanarayanan, the appellant, married Jayalakshmi Ammal, the respondent on 10th February, 1957. In O.P. No. 33 of 1964 on the file of the Court below the respondent instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the appellant was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings. In spite of contest by the husband the Court below passed an order on 1st September, 1964, annulling the marriage on the ground alleged by the wife. Subsequent to the date of annulment the divorced wife filed a petition for alimony at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem with effect from 1st September, 1964. This petition was allowed by t...
The Chairman, Madras Port Trust, Madras Vs. Kamala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad386; [1971(21)FLR383]; (1970)2MLJ59
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This appeal under the Letters Patent arises out of an accident claim made by the widow of the deceased. At about 6-30 p.m. on 6th June 1961, her husband had been asked by one Mr. Watts, who was a dredger, to fetch food for him, and was knocked down by a lorry on the highways near St. Thomas Mount and he died on the spot, At the time the deceased was riding a cycle and returning to the Port Trust with food from Mr. Watt's residence. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, was not satisfied that the deceased was injured resulting in his death by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment He was of the view that fetching food for the Dredger was not part of a Port Trust lascar's job. Venkatadri J., however, allowed the appeal by the respondent and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2100.2. There is no dispute about the quantum of compensation. But, on behalf of the Port Trust, it is contended that the deceased having been on a private err...
The Director of Industrial and Commerce Vs. K. Vellaichami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ450Mad
ORDERAlagiriswami, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Labour Court, Madurdi, directing the payment of bonus to the employees employed in the Textile Mills Parts Unit of the Government of Madras located in the Industrial Estate at Madurai.2. Objection was taken before the Labour Court that under Section 32(iv) of the Act, the Act does not apply to employees employed by an establishment engaged in any industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority and therefore no bonus was payable. But the Labour Court was impressed by the argument on behalf of the employees based on Section 20 of the Act which lays down that if in any accounting year an establish neat in public sector sells any goods produced or manufactured by it or renders any service in competition with an establishment in private sector and the income from such sale or services or both is not less than twenty percent of the...
Mohamed NaziruddIn Vs. Govindarajulu Appah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad44; (1971)1MLJ28
1. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiffs 3 and 4, who were added as the legal representatives of the second plaintiff who died during the pendency of the suit. One Mohamed Ghouse Khan Sabhi, the father of the fourth plaintiff, executed a gift deed on 19-9-1938 in respect of the superstructure of house No. 13 Fakir Sated Street, first lane, Triplicate, Madras in favour of his grandsons, plaintiff 1 and 2, who were then minors represented by their father and guardian Mohamed Mahaboob Khan, the fourth plaintiff in the suit. Ex. A-1 is a registration copy of the gift deed and it shows that the property has been valued at Rs. 1000. At the time of the gift there was a mortgage Ex. B-1 dated 25-4-1938, executed by Mohamed Ghouse Khan for Rs. 300, over the property covered by the gift deed. The donor directed the mortgage to be redeemed from out of the income and profits from the property gifted by him. The fourth plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs. 55 towards the principal till the end o...
G.M. Ali Vs. Mrs. M. Rosary Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ156
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this civil revision petition an interesting question arises, whether a notice of determination of tenancy is necessary in the case of a tenant who holds over, and, if it is necessary, whether such a notice should conformably be in terms agreed to between the landlord and the tenant prior to the commencement of such holding over by the tenant. Under a tenancy agreement Exhibit P-1, dated 24th November, 1954, the petitioner was let into possession of premises No. 100, Broadway, Madras. Inter alia the agreement provided that the tenancy shall be in accordance with the English calendar month and that the petitioner shall use the premises only for his own purposes and shall not sublet or assign the whole or any portion thereof. Clause 6 of the agreement runs as follows:The lessee agrees to take on lease the premises for a period of one year commencing from 1st December, 1954 and is terminable on a month's notice on either side on the expiry of this lease.After th...
Mahalakshmi Oils Mills Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ528Mad
Maharajan, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Madras, in E.I.O.P. Nos. 2 of 1962 and 44 of 1962. The earlier application was filed by the proprietor of Mahalakshmi Oil Mills against the Employees' State Insurance Corporation for a declaration that the Employees' State Insurance Act is not applicable to the mill because the mill had no more than 14 persons working in the premises thereof. The later application was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the Mahalakshmi Oil Mills claiming employees' contribution on the ground that on the date of inspection of the premises by the Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 20 persons were found working in the premises and, consequently, the mill was liable to pay contribution. The contention of the Mahalakshmi Oil Mills was that only 14 out of the 20 persons were employed in the factory and the remaining 6 were employed only in the sales org...
K.S. Ramaswami Vs. the Inspector of Municipalities, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad479
1. These writ appeals have been preferred by the State of Madras and one K.S. Ramaswami against the order of Kailasam, J. allowing the W.P. Nos. 538 and 539 of 1968 filed by one P. Murugaiyan, setting aside the order of the Inspector of Municipalities, appointing K.S. Ramaswami as the Manager of Erode Municipality and restoring that of the appointment of committee appointing P. Murugaiyan for the said post.2. Under Section 73 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the appointments to all posts under the Municipal Council, other than those specified in Sections 12-C and 72 of the Act, the pay or the maximum pay of which exceeds Rs. 50 per mensem, shall be made by a committee consisting of the chairman, the Commissioner and one member elected by the Council, subject to any rules, including the rules for the representation of the different communities which the State Government may make in this behalf. Under Rule 7-B of the Rules relating to establi...
E.S. Athithyaraman Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad170
ORDER1. The petitioner jointed the service of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board on 1-4-1949. He was confirmed in the cadre of clerk on 10-10-1960. The post of Inspector also belonged to that cadre. He was promoted to the cadre of Upper Division Inspector on 1-4-1961 and confirmed in the said cadre on Assistants, including Inspectors, from 1-7-1966. When the petitioner was functioning as Inspectors, Dharapuram from 5-5-1958 to 3-11-1959, he was alleged to be guilty of certain irregularities in the discharge of his duties. Consequently, on 14-4-1960 the Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (Administration Department), Coimbatore, framed four charges against the petitioner and called upon him to submit his explanation within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the charges. On 25-5-1960 the petitioner submitted his explanation with reference to the said charges. By a communication dated 6-2-1961 the said Assistant Commissioner required the petit...
In Re: Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1970
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1539
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The Petitioner herein gave evidence in the committal Court that he had witnessed with his own eyes the murder of One Guruswami Kudumban by the accused Muthiah Kudumban. In the 'Sessions Court however, the petitioner resiled from that statement and maintained that he did not witness the occurrence at all. In view of this very material contradiction, the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram concluded that the petitioner bad perjured; and therefore he ordered the prosecution of the petitioner. This step, so the prosecution claims, was taken for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that there was no need to give the petitioner any opportunity of being heard in that regard. The petitioner then faced a criminal trial for an offence under Section 193, Penal Code and was convicted.2. Mr. K. R. Natarajan appearing for the petitioner argued that before the complaint was laid against the pet...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »