Chennai Court February 1974 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.
Ananda Transport Vs. M. Chelliah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ39Mad
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Common questions arise in these writ appeals. We shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petitions. Thirteen workers in Writ Petition No. 2723 of 1969 and five workers in Writ Petition No. 2724 of 1969, who were the respondents in the writ petitions, claimed before the labour Court functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that they were not given uniform and chappals during the years 1966 and 1967 and also washing charges, providing all of which is obligatory on the part of the management for the different workmen concerned in the two writ petitions, and they sought the assistance of the labour Court in the matter of such benefits which were capable of being computed in terms of money to be so computed. The management was the respondent before the labour Court. The labour Court, after having correctly appreciated the position of law that such benefits were computable in terms of money and they were benefits to which the workmen were entitled ...
The Management of Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning and Weaving Mills (Private) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ80
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This writ petition lies within a very narrow compass. Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 1971 was pending on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to which the petitioner as well as the second respondent were parties. The Government in G.O.R. No. 71, Labour, dated 11 th January, 1972, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23rd February, 1972 passed the following Order:Whereas there has been a representation from the Textile Employees' Association, Coimbatore, for transfer of Industrial Dispute No. 101 of 1971 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, to another Labour Court or Tribunal.And whereas, in the opinion of the Governor of Tamil Nadu it is necessary to transfer the said proceeding on the file of the said Court to another Labour Court.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1947), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby withdraws the Industri...
Alavai Industries (Private) Limited (by Its Managing Director, P.R. Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ430Mad
S. Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Madurai, dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act and holding that the appellant is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and is liable to pay employees' contribution of Rs. 621 demanded by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras (respondent).2. The appellant is the Alavai Industries (Private), Ltd., carrying on the business of manufacturing bricks at Kozhimedu in Madurai. In Kozhimedu village, the appellant is preparing wire-cutting bricks, tiles and hand-made country bricks. In the petition, it is alleged that the unit, which is engaged in the manufacture of the hand-made country bricks is separate from and independent of the unit, which is engaged in the manufacture of wire-cutting bricks and tiles and that electric power is used only in the manufacture of wire-cutting bricks a...
Narayanan Vs. Kannabiran Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ303
ORDERS. Makarajan, J.1. The appellant is the purchaser of certain properties from the Official Receiver of Chingleput who held on 16th April, 1968 an auction sale of the properties of the insolvent in I.P. No. 1 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput. The first respondent herein, who is the son and legal representative of one of the petitioning creditors (since dead), filed a petition under Sections 4 to 6 and 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale. This was opposed by the Official Receiver and by the appellant, the purchaser. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, after an elaborate discussion of the evidence adduced by the parties, set aside the sale on the ground that the auction sale had been conducted by the Official Receiver without any notice to the petitioning creditor and that the price fetched at the Official Receiver's auction was unduly low. Against the order of the Subordinate Judge, the appellant preferred C.M.A. No. 41 of 1970 on the fil...
M.S.M. Shikkadai Maracayar Vs. Abdul Majeed Maraicayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad95
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 45 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanjore, is the appellant. The plaintiffs case may be briefly stated as follows :2. In the properties described in A to C schedules, the plaintiff has a 2/3rd share, and the first defendant, a l/3rd share, and though ostensible title in such properties stands in the name of the second defendant, the plaintiff and the first defendant are the real owners thereof. Ever since the purchase of the said properties under Exs. B-9, B-12, B-17 and B-18, the plaintiff was exercising the right of joint possession along with the first defendant to the exclusion of the second defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share in the A to C schedule properties.3. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant. In his written statement, he would state that the properties described in schedule A and B were purchased by the second defendant ...
Perumal and ors. Vs. K. Jayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ232
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is a civil miscellaneous second appeal against the judgment of the District Judge of Chingleput allowing C.M.A. No. 23 of 1970 against the order of the District Munsif of Chingleput in execution petition No. 279 of 1969 in O.S. No. 328 of 1963. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to state a few facts. The Chingleput Dhanasekara Nidhi Limited, instituted a suit, O.S. No. 328 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput in enforcement of a mortgage, granted by the first defendant in favour of the Nidhi. Defendants 2 to 7 were impleaded as subsequent purchasers of the hypotheca. The 8th defendant was impleaded as she had obtained a subsequent mortgage of the same property from the first defendant on 11th June, 1962. This mortgage, though subsequent to the mortgage granted in favour of the first defendant, was antecedent in point of time to the alienations in favour of the defendants 2 to 7. The 8th defendant,...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation represented by Regional Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ530Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Ramamurti, J., dismissing a civil miscellaneous appeal under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The learned Judge was of the view that causal employees were not within the purview of the Act. The correctness of this view is the only question in the appeal. The respondent is a limited liability company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn. In the course of infection of its books the Insurance Inspector fund a large debit of about Rs. 0,000 which represented wages paid to certain employees. It is not in dispute-and it has never been at any stage that these employees were casual employees engaged for whitewashing and effecting repairs to the factory buildings. The Regional Director issued a demand on the respondent on March 19, 1962 that the employer's contribution in respect of these workers should be paid. Those arc all the facts which we know from the record.2. The term 'employe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›