Chennai Court October 1971 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.
The Workmen of Sri Rama Vilas Service Limited Vs. Sri Rama Vilas Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ386Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal arises from the order of Palaniswamy, J. which appears in Sri Rama Vilas Service v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 1971 I L.L.J. 464. On June 13, 1966, two drivers' services were terminated by the management in terms of standing order 18(a). What led to this, according to the management, was a memorandum presented by about 114 conductors alleging that the two drivers were so discharging their duties that it was not possible for them to work with them. On this representation the management kept the two drivers without work till June 13, 1966. Finding, however, that there was no possibility of any reconcilement, the termination was brought about. According to the standing order we mentioned, the employment of any permanent worker may be terminated at any time for a reasonable cause by the manager upon the expiration of 14 days' notice in writing or forthwith on payment of an amount equivalent to the wages that would be normally earned by the employee if...
R. Govindarajalu Naidu Vs. S.A.M. Ayyaru Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ140
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The contention that is raised is that the notice is not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Notice, Exhibit A-3, is certainly not in accordance with Section 106 in that it does not give fifteen days notice expiring with the end of the month of the tenancy. The trial Court, as well as the appellate Court, held that according to a decision of this Court, notice under Section 106 was not necessary. But the revision Court has held that as the tenant has denied the title of the landlord, no notice is necessary, relying on the decision of this Court in Sadagopa Alwar v. Elumalai Chetty (1970) 1 M.L.J. 16.2. A lease of an immovable property is determined under Section 111(g) by forfeiture. The sub-section provides for three contingencies on the happening of which the lessor may re-enter, (1) when the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof, the lessor may re-enter, (2) when the lessee renounces his chara...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›