Chennai Court June 1971 Judgments
Abdul Sathar Sahib and anr. Vs. Abdul Lateef Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad322
1. The execution application out of which this appeal arises was filed by Abdul Lateef Sahib the first defendant in O.S. No. 54 of 1949 on the file of the Cuddalore Sub-Court under Order 21, Rule 35, C.P. Code for delivery of property as per terms of the decree against the appellants and some others.2. The final decree in the suit which was passed on 6-10-1958 was actually engrossed on non-judicial stamp papers only on 2-8-1960. The fortyfifth defendant in the suit who had purchased item No. 77 in execution of a decree against the second defendant Abdul Sahib (the first appellant herein) filed an application for amending the final decree praying for allotment of that item to him instead of the first appellant herein. The amendment was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 25-10-1962.3. E.P. No. 43 of 1965 was filed by the first defendant respondent herein on 12th July, 1965 for delivery of the properties that were allotted to his share in the final decree.4. The appellants conten...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited Vs. the Industrial Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ128
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. We think that the conclusion of the learned Judge, who agreed with the Tribunal, that the farm Section of the appellant company is an industry, within the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, is correct. The dispute related to certain issues touching revision of the dearness allowance, categorlsation of the farm workers and the scales of wages for the categories. But, as a preliminary point as to jurisdiction, on behalf of the management, it was contended before the Tribunal, but without success, that the farm Section was not an industry so as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and justify the reference of the dispute for adjudication. The Tribunal has also decided on the merits of the dispute. But no point about it has been raised either before the learned Judge or before us.2. The company is a limited liability one incorporated sometime in July, 1954, with the primary object of manufacturing sugar from sugarcane. The factory was ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Munnikilavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ237a
ORDER1. The three petitioners question the propriety of their convictions Under Section 34 (6) of the Police Act (V of 1861) for the offence which may be described compendiously as being found riotous. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the offence proved against the petitioners took place in the village Kalakudi which cannot be described as any 'town' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. It is conceded by the learned Advocate-General that the village Kalakudi is not a 'town' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act. It is totally unnecessary to examine the scope of Section 46 of the Act, which provides for the extension of the whole or any part of this Act to any presidency, State or place, and also the terms of G.O.Ms. No. 3204, Home Department (Government of Tamil Nadu), dated 15th November, 1955.2. It is on the short ground of want of proof of the ingredient 'town' in relation to Kalakudi village wherein the offence is stated to have been c...
Tag this Judgment!A.B. Lobo Vs. Fateh Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad323
ORDER1. In this civil revision petition against the order of execution directed against the defendant judgment-debtor, Miss O. K. Sridevi, learned counsel, Submits that no payment can be made to the decree-holder who is a foreigner. This point is well taken and has to be accepted.2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the judgment-debtor, it is stated:'I submit that the decree-holder Fateh Khan has left for Pakistan about three years back and that he has not obtained any permit from the Reserve Bank of India for realising the money due to him.'The decree-holder has not filed any affidavit to controvert this statement. It is also clear that the decree-holder is not now a resident and he is a Pathan--according to the defendant, a foreigner. If the contention of the decree-holder is that he is an Indian national, he ought to have filed an affidavit or let in evidence to that effect. In the record as it stands, the allegation by the judgment-debtor has not been controverted. The power of att...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Shaik Abdul Khader Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad199
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 20 Maracair Lubbai St, Mannady. The ground floor has two compartments, a front portion and a rear portion. The front portion was occupied by one Abideen Sahib. When he vacated, the petitioner gave a notice of vacancy to the Accommodation Controller (respondent) stating that the building was non-residential, and that the rent previously paid by the tenant was Rs. 150 per month. On receipt of the vacancy notice, the respondent allotted the building to one Abdul Rasheed, a junior Assistant working in his own office, with effect from 19-1-1970 fixing the rent at Rs. 60 per month subject to fixation of fair rent. It is to quash this proceeding dated 12-2-1970 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner's contention is that, wherever he had given notice of vacancy describing the building as non-residential, the respondent had no jurisdiction to allot it for residential purposes and that too by fixing the rent arbitrarily at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!In Re T.C. Muthuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1811; (1971)IIMLJ427
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Five bags of rice purchased at Ranipet in North Arcot District were transported through the T. V. S-lorry on the 22nd May 1966 under cover of a permit Ex. P. 1, purporting to have been issued by the District Supply Officer North Arcot, one Mr- Srinivasan, P. oW. 1. who was in charge of the checkpost at Kannamangalam, suspected Ex. P. 1 to be a spurious permit. He unloaded, the bags, seized the permit and then sent a report to the Tahsildar., Investigation followed and P.W. 21, the Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell, detected that the permit was a spurious one not issued by the District Supply Officer. P.W. 7., the broker who had purchased these bags on behalf of the person who actually transported them, pointed out the house of this petitioner. M.O. 4 box was opened with the Key produced by this petitioner. M. 0.6 (forms). M. Os. 7, 8, 9 & 10 (Government seals) M.O. 11 (rubber stamp for the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar. Arkonam), M, 0.12 (block of the Tal...
Tag this Judgment!Malaichamy and ors. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ445
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The five appellants seek to question the propriety of their convictions and sentences for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. That there has been serious enmity between Palaniandi Servai (P.W. 4) and the first accused is undoubtedly established from the evidence of P.W. 4. The personal enmitycharacterisingthe relationship between P.W. 4 and the first accused, Malaichamy, has even culminated in P.W. 4 filing a suit (O.S. No. 54 of 1968) on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence of P.W. 4, we have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the learned trial Judge that P.W. 4 and the first accused were on inimical terms for sometime prior to the occurrence, although, they were distantly related to each other.3. On the date of the occurrence 16th April, 1970 at about 4 P.M. P.W. 4 Palaniandi Servai and one Kandaswamy (not examined) were returning from Kottampatti to the...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. N. Jeenaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ202
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Palaniswamy, J., allowing the petition filed by the respondent. On the ground that the respondent had failed to utilise the advance taken of Rs. 2,400 to buy a motor-cycle, the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer by an order of his dated 9th September, 1966, imposed on him the punishment of withholding for a period of six months the future increment. Against this order the respondent filed an appeal. The Chief Personnel Officer who dealt with it sent a notice to the respondent on 21st November, 1967, asking him to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced. Finally by an order dated 28th May, 1968, the General Manager issued a notice as to why the respondent should not be removed from service. The respondent filed a petition to quash this notice. It appears that subsequently the General Manager by an order of his dated 28th May, 1969 actually removed him from service. The validity of the order of removal was challenged by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›