Chennai Court December 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.
Francis Xavier Vs. Divisional Operating Superintendent, Movement, Sout ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ21
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Francis Xavier seeks to revise the order on I.A. No. 577 of 1968, Under Section 5, Limitation Act, in unnumbered C.M.A. No. of 1968, on the file of the District Court, Chingleput, refusing to excuse the delay in preferring the C.M.A. against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Madras.2. The petitioner's case is that he got the copy of the order of the Additional Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Madras, only on 14th March, 1968 by post, that his appeal was in time and that by way of abundant caution, he has filed the application to condone delay.3. Under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, an appeal may be preferred within thirty days from the date on which the order was made. But the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation does not generally pronounce orders in Court, but communicates the same to parties by post. The parties could not be expected to take steps to prefer appeal till they receive the ord...
Srinivasa Naicker and anr. Vs. A.N. Nagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas550(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This revision raises an interesting question of law. The respondent, Nagappa Chettiar, filed a suit, O.S. No. 27 of 1969, on the file of the lower court for recovery of certain monies due under a promissory note executed by the petitioners, and their defence was that the promissory note was executed in connection with the business of a company by name Chellam Transports Ltd., and that the money could, therefore, be recovered from the assets of that company only and not personally from them. The petitioners filed an application, I.A. No. 95 of 1970, for a notice under Order 8-A, Civil Procedure Code, to bring in Chellam Transports Ltd., which was under liquidation by then, as a co-defendant, and this application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that he had nothing to do with Chellam Transports Ltd., and that under Section 446 of the Companies Act of 1956, the petitioners have to obtain sanction of the company court for initiating proceedings against the compan...
The Tinnevelly-tuticorIn Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1970
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ312Mad
ORDERPalaniswamy, J.1. In his capacity as assistant lineman, the second respondent, Raman, was in charge of the petitioner-company's stores at Masakarai Village in Tirunelveli District during the period 1967-68. On 8-3-1968, one Jayapal, the line supervisor reported shortage of 364 metres of a particular kind of wire. On the same day, one Naserean was said to have given a statement to the Chief Engineer stating that the second respondent had given him 300 metres of wire about four months prior to that date and that he in turn sold away the same to some persons. On 12-3-1968 a memo was issued to the second respondent asking him to explain the shortage. The second respondent, by his letter dated 15-3-1968, denied knowledge of the shortage and stated that he was on leave from 6-11-1967 to 3-12-1967. On 27-3-1968, a charge memo was served upon the second respondent alleging violation of certain standing orders of the company (theft, fraud or dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to good order...
E. Venkatakrishna Reddy and ors. Vs. Minor Amarababu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ466
ORDER(Order of the Court was delivered by Ramaprasada Rao, J.) The only direction, after hearing the parties, that could be given in this case at this stage is this:34. The sum of Rs. 11,535 which has been invested in a Fixed Deposit Account by the Receiver, will be paid over by the Receiver on maturity to the plaintiffs. The parties are at liberty to apply for such further directions in a regular application filed for the purpose for the disbursement of the other monies with the Receiver and in Court....
Rangaswamy Gounder by Guardian, Mother, Kandiammal Vs. Rakkayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1970
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ25
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Admittedly the suit properties originally belonged to one Kaliammal, wife of Sengoda Goundar and that Kaliammal died issueless. According to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on the death of Kaliammal without leaving any issue, it is her husband's heirs who inherit the properties. Her husband Sengoda Goundar had a brother by name Karuppanna Goundar and a sister by name Sembayeeammal. The plaintiff in the suit is the surviving daughter of Sembayeeammal, while the defendant in the suit is the purchaser from two daughters of Karuppanna Goundar, namely Sembayeeammal and Pavayeeammal. When the plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share of the suit properties the defendant put forward two contentions. One was that Sembayee and Pavayee, the vendors of the defendant being brother's-daughters of Sengoda Goundar, excluded the plaintiff who was a sister's daughter of Sengoda Goundar. The second contention was that in any ...
Mohammed Nirulla Badsha Vs. Nawab Ghulam Mohideen Khan Bahadur, Muthav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1970
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ22.
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. As the matter has come before this Court the question involved in. this Second Appeal is one of limitation only. The first respondent herein instituted the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovery of the same from the appellant and the second respondent herein, with past and future profits. Among other defences, one of the defences put forward by the appellant and the second respondent was one of limitation. The question of limitation arises in the following circumstances:2. On 5th December, 1944, the first respondent caused a notice, Exhibit B-17 to issue to the second respondent alleging that he was in occupation of the property on a monthly rental of Rs. 5 from 1st June, 1944 and calling on him to vacate and hand over possession. The second respondent sent a reply Exhibit B-18 dated 12th January, 1945, stating that he has executed a rental agreement to the appellant herein and that he has been paying rent to him. Immediately ther...
S. Naganatha Ayyar and ors. Vs. the Authorised Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ274
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. In all the above revisions the scope of Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, has come up for consideration and so they are dealt with together. Before dealing with the common legal issue involved in these cases, in is necessary to set out briefly the facts relating to each of these revisions.2. C.R.P. Nos. 1824 and 1825 of 1965.--One Naganatha Iyer, whose family consisted of his wife and three daughters, submitted a return under Section 10 declaring his holding as 83-09 ordinary acres = 73.74 standard acres as on 6th April, i960. The Authorised Officer held that his family was entitled to 60 standard acres and as Naganatha Iyer's family was in possession of 13 acres in excess, he was liable to surrender the same. He was called upon to surrender the said excess extent. The said Naganatha Iyer pleaded that one of his daughters was given in marriage on 6th September, 1961, and she has passed into the family of her husba...
A. Subbiah Vs. B. Thiruvenkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ386
S. Ganesan, J.1. The decree holder is the appellant; and he is aggrieved that the Courts below have rejected his application for attachment of the provident fund amount of the respondent (an employee in Vasantha Mills, Coimbatore, who had retired from service) which was still in the hands of the mills on the date of the application. 2. The provident fund in this case is governed by the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952; and Section 10 thereof reads thus:The amount standing to the credit of any member in the fund or of any exempted employee in a provident fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the member or the exempted employee.Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the provisions of Section 10 will not afford any immunity to the respondent, as he had admittedly retired from service on the date of the application for attachm...
The South India Insurance Co., Bombay Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad347; [1971]41CompCas537(Mad); (1971)2MLJ354
1. As these three maters arise out of three claims in respect of the same motor accident, they have to be dealt with together.2. On 21-8-1964 at about 10-30 p.m. one Chinnathambi Udayar along with Rajakannu Udayar, Lakshmana Udayar were returning in three bullock carts driven by them from Pudukottai to Kandarvakottai dashed While they were returning, the lorry MDO 2914 proceeding towards Puducottai dashed against the said three bullock carts coming in the opposite direction. As a result of the accident Chinnathambi Udayar and Rajakannu Udayar died and Lakshmana Udayar was seriously injured. Two bulls of Chinnathambi Udayar and three other bulls also died, and all the three carts got damaged. the accident is alleged to have taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry MDO 2914, belonging to the second respondent in all these appeals and insured with the appellant herein.3. The widow of Chinnathambi Udayar filed a claim M.A.C.T.O.P. 1 of 1967 before the Mo...
S. Erattamuthu Nadar and ors. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1970
Reported in: [1971]28STC649(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This is a petition to quash the provisional assessment made on the petitioner for 1969-70. In the first instance, a provisional assessment was made on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,858.39. This was done on the basis of the return submitted by the assessee for 1968-69 in form A-l. But it was found by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tuticorin II, that the assessee had sold chillies for Rs. 93,990 to the National Agricultural Marketing Federation at Tuticorin during September, 1969. Accordingly, the provisional assessment was revised by re-fixing the turnover as Rs. 98,848. A notice was issued to the assessee calling for his objections against the provisional assessment so proposed. The assessee claimed that the sales were export sales or sales which occasioned the export and as such they were not liable to tax. The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, however, found that the National Agricultural Marketing Federation entered into contracts with various co-operative establish...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »