Chennai Court February 1974 Judgments
Papanasam Fishermen Co-op. Society Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad81
1. Ismail J. dismissed two writ petitions, out of which the appeals arise, on the ground that they were not maintainable, since the rights of the petitioners, who are appellants, were traceable to the contracts entered into between them and the Collector in respect of fishing rights in inland waters in Thanjavur Taluk. Unfortunately, the learned Judge's attention was not drawn to the fact that the Collector exercised, in granting the licence and entering into the lease in respect of the fishing rights, a statutory authority traceable to the Indian Fisheries Act, 1897, as amended by Madras Act II of 1929 and the rules framed thereunder.2. Briefly these are the facts: For the year 1972-73, in Thanjavur the Fishermen Co-operative Society held the licence for the fishing rights, the fee therefor being Rs. 58/795. The Society defaulted to pay Rs. 33,085. On 27-8-1973, the Collector of Thanjavur notified the appellant in W. A. 340 of 1973, whether it would make an offer in respect of the rig...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesamuthuriar and anr. Vs. the Idols of Sri Sappani Karuppuswami and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad23
Maharajan, J.1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of Palaniswamy, J. and arises under the following circumstances. One Samiyadi Pichai claiming to be the trustee of a temple of five deities (Sri Sappanikarppuswami, Sri Naruveli Karuppuswami, Sri Nagappaswami, Sri Marudaiveeraswami end Sri Sannasiswami) sued the appellants, who were the defendants 1 and 2 in the trial Court, for a declaration that he is the trustee of the temple and for recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned land, measuring one acre two cents, from the appellants and in thealternative, for rendition of accounts. This suit was resisted by the appellants on several grounds. The trial court held that Pichai is the trustee of the temple, but that he was not entitled to possession by virtue of a decision in O. S. No. 119 of 1932. It, however, granted a decree declaring the title of Pichai as trustee and directing the defendants to render accounts in respect of a specific temple Kattalai. of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Srinivasan Vs. Sri Malleeswarar Devasthanam by Trustees and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ172
S. Natarajan, J.1. In a suit for ejectment filed by the trustees of Sri Malleswarar Devasthanam, the respondents herein, the defendant, viz., the appellant in this appeal, contended that he was entitled to the benefits conferred by the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 and in accordance with such plea, he filed a petition, I.A. No. 16074 of 1967 under Section 9 (1) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent conceded the claim of the appellant and made an endorsement to that effect on 13th December, 1969. Thereafter, the learned IVth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court who dealt with the petition appointed a Commissioner to inspect the property in the occupation of the appellant and give a report about the probable value of the property. After making a local inspection and after taking into consideration the documents filed by the respondents the Commissioner gave his report, Exhibit G-1, stating therein that the total extent...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad28
1. This appeal involves interpretation of the scope of jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal under Section 41(3) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. A complaint was filed before the Tribunal on 21st May, 1965, which was disposed of by it on 20th July, 1968, revising the maintenance charges in respect of siding from the date of the complaint, and the siding charges were fixed at Rs. 38 with effect from the same date and Rs. 42 from 10th April, 1967, on a certain view of increase in the railway rates. The appeal has been filed before us on the strength of U.D.S. Mills v. S.S.L. Railway , as was the case in the writ petition.2. Section 41 (1) says that any complaint that a railway administration is levying a charge which is unreasonable., may be -made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall hear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act. Sub-section (3) of that section is:In the case of a complaint under Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Su...
Tag this Judgment!Crompton Engineering Co. (Madras) Private Limited Vs. Additional Labou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ207Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to quash the award of the Labour Court, Madras, dated 5th December, 1970, made in Industrial Dispute No. 155 of 1968, Most of the facts are not in controversy.2. The petitioner, the Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Private Ltd., had employed the respondents 2 to 4 herein temporarily for a specific period or in respect of a particular contract work undertaken by the petitioner. The three persons had been employed for several such periods and for several such contracts. Exhibits M 1 and M 4 which are the orders of appointment in respect of W.W. 1 and W.W. 3 show that they were appointed in respect of the particular contract or for particular period and their appointments were purely temporary and came to an end as soon as the period or the job was over. The respondents 2 to 4 herein raised an industrial dispute on the allegation that they were not given any work with effect from a particular date. That dispute was referred for adjudication by the...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raju Vs. the President, Madurai Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ240Mad
Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein was an employee of the first respondent and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain charges with effect from 1st December, 1968. Subsequently, by an order, dated 7th November, 1969, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension, namely, 1st December, 1968. The petitioner thereafter filed claim Petition No 5 of 1970 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 2,006 said to be wages due to him for the period of suspension from 1st December, 1968 to 10th November, 1969. Before 'the Labour Court, the first respondent, apart from contending that the order of suspension was valid on merits, also contended that the Labour Court at Madurai had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the suspension of the petitioner could have been the subject-matter of an industrial Dispute r...
Tag this Judgment!V. Raju Vs. the President, Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ83
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioner herein was an employee of the first respondent and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain charges with effect from 1st December, 1968. Subsequently, by an order, dated 7th November, 1969, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension, namely, 1st December, 1968. The petitioner thereafter filed Claim Petition No. 5 of 1970 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming a sum of Rs. 2,006 said to be wages due to him for the period of suspension from 1st December, 1968 to 10th November, 1969. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent, apart from contending that the order of suspension was valid on merits, also contended that the Labour Court at Madurai had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the suspension of the petitioner could have been the subject-matter of an indust...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi), Owning the Western Railway, Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ96
ORDER1. This appeal involves interpretation of the scope of jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal under Section 41(3) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. A complaint was filed before the Tribunal on 21st May, 1965, which was disposed of by it on 20th July, 1968, revising the maintenance charges in respect of siding from the date of the complaint, and the siding charges were fixed at Rs. 38 with effect from the same date and Rs. 42 from 10th April, 1967, on a certain view of increase in the railway rates. The appeal has been filed before us on the strength of U.D.S. Mills v. S.S.L. Railway : [1963]2SCR333 , as was the case in the writ petition.2. Section 41 (1) says that any complaint that a railway administration is levying a charge which is unreasonable., may be -made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall hear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Act. Sub-section (3) of that section is:In the case of a complaint under Clause (b...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Private Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ118
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to quash the award of the Labour Court, Madras dated 5th December, 1970. made in I.D. No. 155 of 1968. Most of the facts are not in controversy.2. The petitioner, the Cromption Engineering Company (Madras) Private Limited, had employed the respondents 2 to 4 herein temporarily for a specific period or in respect of a particular contract work undertaken by the petitioner. The three persons had been employed for several such periods and for several such contracts. Exhibits M-1 and M-4 which are the orders of appointment in respect of W. W. 1 and W. W. 3 show that they were appointed in respect of the particular contract or for particular period and their appointments were purely temporary and came to an end as soon as the period or the job was over. The respondents 2 to 4 herein raised an industrial dispute on the allegation that they Were not given any work with effect from a particular date. That dispute was referred for adjudication by the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC50(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of remand made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners herein reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 18,17,325.20 and Rs. 223.42 respectively for the assessment year 1971-72 to the assessing authority. Later there was a surprise inspection of the petitioners' business premises on 17th August, 1972, and it was found that the petitioners had purchased iron and steel from 12 dealers during the assessment year 1971-72, the total of the purchases amounting to Rs. 3,91,495.03. At the stage of assessment, the taxable turnover was estimated at Rs. 4,30,873.42. The assessees questioned the assessment by riling an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In that appeal, the assessees complained that they were not given reasonable opportunity to put forward their objections before the assessing authority. Accepting this objection, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the assessing authority to give ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »