Chennai Court March 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.
The Management of Sayani Talkies Represented by Its Managing Partner M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ35
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The second respondent was employed under the appellant., the Management of Sayani Talkies, and a dispute arose about his non-employment before the Conciliation Officer, Labour Officer-I, Madras. The appellant and the second respondent entered into a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 28th September, 1968 agreeing to refer the dispute to the arbitration of the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, or his nominee. The Commissioner of Labour nominated the first respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, evidently as persona designata, to arbitrate, and he obtained statements from the appellant and the second respondent, recorded evidence, heard them and found that the non-employment of the second respondent; was not justified and that he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and half back wages. Accordingly, he passed an award on 12th May, 1969. These facts are admitted in the appellant's affidavit filed in support of...
Lakshmi Ammal (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Subba Raj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ137
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 4 of 1963 arises out of the final decree proceedings. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein for partition and separate possession of their 23/48th share in the plaint 'A' schedule properties. That suit was decreed on 31st July, 1964. Neither the plaintiffs have prayed for past or future mesne profits in the plaint nor has the preliminary decree directed an enquiry into the mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 124 of 1966 for partition of the immovable properties and separate possession as directed in the preliminary decree. They also filed I .A. No. 205 of 1966 for determination of mesne profits for the suit items from fasli 1372 onwards and the incorporate the same in the final decree. The dispute in these proceedings related to the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the question of mesne profits in the absence of a prayer in the ...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. A.V. Subramani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad7
1. Second defendant, Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., is the appellant. The suit is for damages claiming Rs. 6176-54 and for costs. Out of this amount of Rs. 6176-54 a sum of Rupees 3956-54 was claimed towards the costs of repair as per the bills from T. V. S. and Sons (P) Ltd., and Rs. 2220 towards loss of income owing to the fact that the taxi was not put on road due to the accident for a period of 74 days. This claim is due to the fact that the lorry MDJ 4632 belonging to the first defendant in the suit was driven rashly and negligently resulting in a collision with the taxi belonging to the plaintiffs and caused damages to the taxi. 2. The first defendant contended that the lorry was not driven rashly and negligently and that the driver of the lorry accepted the guilt because of inducement by the police The first defendant further averred that the damages claimed are excessive and that the (claim for?) damages for non-user is not maintainable. The second defendant-Insur...
Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited Vs. A.V. Subramania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ281
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Second defendant, Madras Motor and General Insurance Company Limited, is the appellant. The suit is for damages claiming Rs. 6,176.54 and for costs. Out of this amount of Rs. 6,176.54 a sum of Rs. 3,956.54 was claimed towards the costs of repair as per the bills from T.V.S.& Sons (Private) Limited and Rs. 2,220 towards loss of income owing to the fact that the taxi was not put on road due to the accident for a period of 74 days.2. This claim is due to the fact that the lorry MDJ 4632 belonging to the 1st defendant in the suit was driven rashly and negligently resulting in a collision with the taxi belonging to the plaintiffs and caused damages to the taxi.3. The 1st defendant contended that the lorry was not driven rashly and negligently and that the driver of the lorry accepted the guilt because of inducement by the police. The 1st defendant further averred that the damages claimed are excessive and that the damages for non-user is not maintainable. The 2nd d...
A. Rangaswami Pillai Vs. A. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad141
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The seconddefendant is the appellant. The first respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and allotment of 1/3 share in the suit properties which consisted of six schedules. The suit was decreed only in respect of the plaint A schedule properties and even in respect of the same the plaintiff was held to be entitled to only to a 1/4 share and not 1/3 share as claimed in the plaint. The suit in respect of the properties mentioned in the other schedules was dismissed. Since in this appeal by the second defendant, the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of item 1 of the plaint A schedule alone is disputed, we need notice only the facts relating to that item and the respective contentions of the parties. 2. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and one Chockalingam Pillai are the sons of one Arthanatha Pillai through his third wife. He had a son by name Soundararajan by his first wife and another son by name Mathuranayagam by his second wife. On 22-8-1...
The MysIndia Tiles and Engineering Company Vs. Employees State Insuran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ124
C. J. R. Paul, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned First Additional Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras as Employees Insurance Court, decreeing the claim for Rs. 7,125 claimed as contribution payable under Section 40 (1) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, on an ad hoc basis for the period 1st October, 1957 to 30th June, 1965 in respect of certain employees of the appellants' factory.2. It is not disputed that the factory in question is a factory as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, liable to pay employees contribution and in respect of the permanent employees of the factory such contribution was being paid. In Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-12 and A-13 the inspectors who visited the factory on the several dates mentioned therein found some casual workers engaged in the manufacture of mosaic tiles in addition to permanent employees. The manager of the appellant company as R.W. 1 testified that casual labourers were employed for l...
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Alagiriswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad211; (1975)1MLJ228
Maharajan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ganssaa. J. in C. M. S. A. No. 151 of 1969 and arises under the following circumstances : Lakshmi, who is the appellant before us, married Alagiriswami Chettiar, the respondent herein, in the year 1948. At the time of her marriage Alagiriswami Chettiar had a first wife living. After the second marriage both the wives of Alagirisami Chettiar were living with him under the same roof, and each of them begot children to him. The appellant begot two sons and one daughter by AlagiriswamiChettiar and it is said that the eldest son is now 23 years old, the second son is 18 years old and the daughter is 14 years old. Subsequent to the second marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came into force on 18-5-1955. Two of the children of the appellant were born after the commencement of the Act. In 1961, the appellant filed a petition before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, under Section 13(2)(i) and Sections 26 and 27 of the H...
A. Shanmugha Mudaliar Vs. A. Abdul Kareem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad248
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, a trader and manufacturer of beedies, whose mark is admittedly known as 'No. 4 Jadi Beedi' filed this action against the defendant contending that the defendant several years after the plaintiff started manufacturing and marketing of such beedies has designed a mark which is deceptively similar to and resembling in every material particular to his mark of 'No. 4 Jadi Beedi'. The defendant has adopted a mark known as No. 4 AG Beedies,' but the plaintiff's case is that in order to cut at his trade the defendant has designed the mark and was using it on the labels attached to the beedies as also on the wrappers and even a casual comparison of the beedi packets and bundles would disclose a close resemblance as between the two marks and designs, that the Plaintiff is entitled to an automatic decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off or attempting to pass off the beedies now sold by him under...
Chellasivalingam Nadar Vs. Aruldas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ85
Sethuraman, J.1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned Additional District Munsif, Nager-coil. The plaintiff's father was one Swamikkannu Nadar and the family owned the suit property. Swamikkannu Nadar, died in 1952. During his life time, he was interested in toddy business. The plaintiff, the son of Swamikkannu, was then working in the Excise Department. Swamikkannu committed--default in payment of amounts due to the Government with regard to the toddy contract.2. The father and the son had executed a mortgage in favour of one Narayana Perumal Nadar on 29th February, 1934 with regard to the suit property under Exhibit A-l. This property was sold in auction under the Revenue Recovery Act and Narayana Perumal purchased the entire property of 1 acre and 87 cents in the revenue sale. A certificate under Exhibit B-1, dated 25th November, 1938 was granted to him and thereafter, the property was in the possession of the said Narayana Perumal or his son...
Thirugnana Sambandam Chettiar Vs. Kadumbadi Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ75
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises is one in ejectment. The disputed property is stated to be 1-14-8 cawnies equivalent to 2 acres and 52 cents of punja land said to be comprised in Paimash No. 654/1. The defendant filed M. P. No. 12 of 1959 before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Chingleput, against the plaintiffs for an order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that they had purchased the property under a sale deed dated 3rd February, 1958 and claiming to be in possession thereof. On 2 1st October, 1959, the Magistrate upheld the defendant's claim for possession and made the order as prayed for. Thereafter, this suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title to the suit property and for delivery of possession of the same.2. In execution of a decree in S. G. No. 143 of 1930, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput, certain properties of one Shanmugha Gramani, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »