Chennai Court April 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 Management of Remington Rand of India Ltd. Vs. the Additional Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ381Mad
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant employer terminated the services of the 2nd respondent with effect from October 22, 1969. He had not yet completed 58 years of age but completed 35 years of service. On the 2nd respondent's petition to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, the question the commissioner had to decide was whether there was no reasonable cause for the termination of the 2nd respondent's services. The Commissioner found that one Krishnaswami, though he had completed 35 years of service, was retained even after that period on the ground that he had not yet completed 58 years of age. In the light of that the Commissioner thought that there was no particular reason apparent from the evidence as to why a different treatment was accorded to the 2nd respondent. On that ground the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the termination of the 2nd respondent was not for a reasonable cause. The management's ...
R. Santhakumari Vs. S. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1971
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ286
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the mother of the minor child impleading the father of the child as the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent were married about a few years back and the minor child which was 16 months old on the date of the petition is their only child. Both the petitioner and the respondent are school teachers. They had been originally living with the respondent's parents at N.G.O.'s colony, Adambakkam, Madras-16. After February, 1970 the petitioner and the respondent set up a separate house-hold at No. 14, First Gross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, where they had been living with the minor child till about 1st December, 1970. It is common ground that on or about 1st December, 1970 the petitioner and the respondent parted company though the cause for such parting is differently stated by the parties. According to the petitioner the respondent had been ill-treating her for some time prior to tha...
Venkataswami Reddiar and anr. Vs. Sundaramoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad171; (1971)2MLJ445
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,466-10 as and by way of mesne profits from 1st April. 1963, till date of suit and for future mense profits. The plaintiff is the son of one Vythilinga Reddiar. The plaintiff, his father and paternal uncle constituted a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff's father leased the properties under a registered lease deed dated 9th July, 1965 (Original of Exhibit A-1) to Purushottham Reddiar, father of defendants 1 and 2 for a period of seven years. The rent payable was fixed at Rs. 1,000 and 54 bags of paddy per year. There were defaults in payment of the rent. Suit were filed for recovery of the same and ultimately the rents has been recovered for the entire period of seven years. The present suit claim was for the period subsequent to the expiry of the lease under Exhibit A-1, viz., 1st April 1963 to 15th June 1964 the date of suit. There was a partition of 21st October,...
Premlata Agarwal Vs. Lakshman Prasad Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad111; (1971)IIMLJ294
1. We are of the view that this appeal should be allowed. It is by the judgment debtors from an order of Maharajan, J. who, agreeing with the Master, held that the order for costs made while disposing of O. S. A. 11 of 1962 was an interlocutory order to which Order 3. Rule 3 of the High Court-fees Rules would apply. In an execution petition of the respondent, one of the points was as to limitation. The Master held that the petition was barred. But Venkatadri. J., on appeal, took a different view and remitted the execution petition for disposal on the other points raised. The judgment debtors filed O. S. A. 11 of 1962 against the order of Venkatadri, J. but failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs which were fixed at Rupees 1,000/- ; when the execution petition was resumed for further proceeding, objection was taken by the respondent that the order for costs in O. S. A. 11 of 1962 was in the nature of an interlocutory order and that unless in terms of O. 3, R. 3 of the High Court-fee...
Ragaiya Bagavathar and anr. Vs. Kesava Bagavathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad324; (1971)2MLJ387
1. Though the value involved in this second appeal is a very small one, yet it raises an interesting question of law. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. 441 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Arni, who failed before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are the appellants before this Court. The admitted facts are as follows: 2. The first appellant herein was having some dealings in javuli with the respondent herein. In the course of such dealings, a sum of Rs. 700 was due by the first appellant to the respondent herein. In view of the fact that the amount was standing unsecured, the respondent wanted to have the same secured, under a mortgage, but the subject-matter of the mortgage belonged to both the appellants. Consequently, on 1-11-1955, the parties entered into an arrangement consisting of execution of a mortgage deed by the appellants herein in favour of the respondent herein, as evidenced by Ex. A-1 and execution of a counter-part varthamanam letter ...
Kanyalal Thakurdas, Bankers Vs. the Bombay Cycle Importing Company, Cy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ412
R. Sadasivam, J.1. The Bombay Cycle Importing Company, the respondent in these appeals and Civil Revision Petitions, filed O.Ss. Nos. 2765 and 2838 of 1959 and S Cs. Nos. 7 of 1960 and 17 of 1961, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to recover Rs. 3,249-11-0, Rs. 3,890-14-0, Rs. 559-50 and Rs. 559-63 respectively with subsequent interest and costs, against the four defendants in all the suits under the following circumstances.2. The first defendant, P.V.A. Chari in each of the suits was employed in the plaintiff-company as a steno-typist on a salary of Rs. no a month and he Was in such employment from December, to July, 1956 and from September, to April, 1957. His duties were to attend the tapals and pass on the drafts and cheques to the Manager of the company. The evidence of P.W. 1 Ratilal J. Shah, who is the manager of the plaintiff's firm for the last 20 years, is that in respect of the drafts and cheques Exhibits A-6, A-14, A-17 and A-20 forming the subject-matter of O.S....
The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras Vs. K.A. Madhava Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad112; [1971]41CompCas992(Mad)
ORDER1. The respondent who is the same in both the above revisions filed a suit O. S. No. 334 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupattur, against the petitioner herein (the Life Insurance Corporation of India) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 617-46 being the commission due to him in respect of a policy for Rs. 20,000/- in the name of one Dr. T. K. Ganesan which he had canvassed. His case was that he applied for a licence on 16-1-1963 to act as an agent of the petitioner for procuring life insurance business, that on the assurance given by the Development Officer, Tirupattur, that he would be given commission for the business procured by him from the date of the application for licence he canvassed and obtained a proposal from the said Dr. T. K. Ganesan for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which proposal was ultimately accepted by the petitioner, and a policy No. 112511025 had been issued to him but that contrary to the earlier assurance given by the Development Officer, the petit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›