Chennai Court April 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.
Misrimal Hansraj Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Assistan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ188
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant Misrimal Hansraj was convicted under Section 135 (b)(ii) of the Customs Act (hereinafter called ' the Act') and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. In respect of the disposal of the alleged smuggled watches (M.O. 1 series), no separate order was passed as, in the opinion of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, they have been already confiscated to the State by the Customs Authorities.3. The appellant is running a business in watches and other fancy goods in the premises at No. 97, Narayana Mudali Lane, George Town, Madras, under the name and style of Messrs. Sha Manmal Misrimal, a partnership firm consisting of the appellant and his two brothers.4. On 19th December, 1968, P.W. 1 J Rama Rao, Preventive Officer, attached to the Customs House, Madras, searched the shop of the appellant in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs and recovered from the shop, 221 wris...
General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad198; (1975)1MLJ5
Paul, J.1. This is an appeal by the insurance Co. with which the vehicle --Lorry MSM 1078 belonging to the third respondent Babu Reddi and which was involved in an accident on 25-5-1970 at about 3-30 p. m. on the Poonamallee High Road which resulted in the death of one Chandran, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent was insured. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rupees 10,000, as compensation to be paid to the first and second respondents and the Insurance Co., the appellant herein was directed to pay compensation.2. It is contended in this appeal that the Tribunal erred in finding that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle and it also erred in awarding such a huge sum as Rs. 10,000 as compensation and thirdly that the liability of the appellant as the insurer was limited to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the question as to whether there was adequate pr...
The General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Jayalakhmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ148
C.J.R. Paul, J.1. This appeal by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle-lorry MSM. 1078 belonging to the third respondent Babu Reddi and which was involved in an accident on 25th May, 1970 at about 3-30 P.M. on the Poonamalle High Road which resulted in the death of one Chandran, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent was insured. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation to be paid to the first and second respondents and the Insurance Company, the appellant herein was directed to pay the compensation.2. It is contended in this appeal that the Tribunal earned in finding that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle and it also erred in awarding such a huge sum as Rs. 10,000 as compensation and thirdly that the liability of the appellant as the insurer was limited to the extent of the liability arising under the Workman's Compensation Act. On the question as to whether there was...
A. Chinnaswamy Gounder Vs. Chinnaswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad73
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. A piece of pathway was the subject-matter of proceedings before the Board of Revenue. It took the view that the appellant was not entitled to a ryotwari patta to this piece of land, as it was used as a pathway from time immemorial. Incidentally, it recorded a finding that the claim of the appellant to a ryotwari patta for the land under Section 11 (a) of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 was not well founded. The Board, however, as it conceived the 'ends of justice' thought that they would be met by a recognition of the appellant's claim to the land under Section 19-A of the Abolition Act. It, therefore, in exercise of its powers under Section 19-A, directed that the appellant be allowed to remain in occupation of the land in S. No. 40/3, subject to payment of taram assessment and to the further conditions that he should allow the public to use the pathway as was done till then and that he should maintain the pathway in good condition. The Board also reserved the rights of...
Major D. Aranha Vs. Universal Radiators and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ254Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant applied under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to compute the bonus amount due to him in the sum of Rs. 2,100. He claimed that when his services were terminated on March 31, 1966, his bonus was not settled. According to him, the bonus for the year (965-1966 had not been even declared by the management. The respondent-management resisted the claim on the ground inter alia that on April 2, 1966, the appellant was paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 3,000 towards all the benefits due to him, inclusive of bonus for 1965-1966. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, posed for his determination the question, whether the petitioner (appellant herein) was entitled to bonus for 1965-1966, as claimed by him. He answered the question in the affirmative. RamaprasadaRao, J., allowed the management's petition for certiorari. He was of the view that the dispute in the instant case was such as would not fall within the scope of Section 33C(2) of the Act ...
T.P.K. Natesan Chettiar Vs. Achiyayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad202; (1975)1MLJ142
Natarajan, J.1. The defendant, against whom a decree for maintenance was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in O. S. No. 374 of 1967 on the file of his Court, is the appellant and the plaintiff therein is the cross-objector. Admittedly, the defendant married the plaintiff in the year 1945 according to Hindu Sastras and they lived together as husband and wife for about three years. The plaintiff conceived through the defendant and delivered a female child and it is the plaintiff's case that about 8 months after she gave birth to the child called Jaya, the defendant beat her and drove her out of the house. The reason for the ill-treatment, according to the plaintiff, is that the defendant, sought her consent and permission to take a second wife and when she did not oblige him by giving her consent to the second marriage, the defendant became enraged with her and resorted to beating and ill-treating her. After driving out the plaintiff, the defendant is said to have ...
A. N. Parasuram by His Duly Constituted Agent A. P. Narayanan Vs. C. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ388
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff. Respondents 1 to 3 are the owners of Premises No. 24, Halls Road, Madras, of which the appellant is the tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 375.2. On 1st September, 1960 the fourth respondent, Corporation of Madras, issued a notice to the owners, under Rule 3-A of Part 1-A of Schedule IV of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, proposing to amend, in the books of assessment, the annual valuation of the property as Rs. 9,555, and the tax payable thereon as Rs. 1,127-49, and library cess at Rs. 29-81 for the first half-year 1960-61, and calling upon the owners to state their objections thereto, if any, on or before 3 P.M. on 8th September, 1960. By letter, dated 8th September, 1960 respondents 1 to 3 filed their objections to the proposed amendment of the property tax assessment books by revising the annual valuation, contending that the rent for the premises continued to be the same and that they had not caused any...
Srinivasa Roadways, Madurai Vs. Saroja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad126
Maharajan, J. 1. These appeals and civil revision petitions are directed against the common order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, in M. A. C. O. P. 75 and 143 to 145 of 1968. On 3-9-1967. at about 5-30 p. m., between milestones 274/4 and 274/5. in Madurai-Dindi-gul road, there was a collision between the bus MDU 6991 belonging to the Kodai-kanal Motor Union (Pte) Ltd., and lorry MDA 1440 belonging to Srinivasa Roadways Ltd. A number of persons were inside the Bus as passengers at the time of the collision and ten of the passengers re-ceived injuries and one of them. Prof. Sundaramoorthy. succumbed to his injuries in the hospital about two weeks after the accident. The scene of the accident is a national highway, the tarred portion of which is 22ft. 4 inches wide. There is a mud portion about 4 ft. wide, on either side of the road. The total width of the road at the scene of accident would therefore be about 30 ft. 4 inches. The road is wide enough, therefore, to allow ...
The Management of Rajagopal Transport (P) Limited Vs. the State Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1974
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ154Mad
1. The Government, by G.O. (Rt) No. 104, Labour, dated April 29, 1969, made a reference for adjudication of a dispute whether the non-employment of seven workmen was justified. The first of these workmen was a driver by name V. Kumaraswami, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, on a remit order from this Court, found that the dispute relating to V. Kumaraswami, was an individual dispute without a collective backing and the reference was, therefore, bad. But while rendering that finding, the Presiding Officer also considered the merits of the non-employment and found that he was properly dismissed. This was the subject-matter of a Writ Petition No. 3016 of 1966, which Ramakrishnan, J., disposed of on July 12, 1967. The learned Judge found that the Presiding Officer was right both on the nature of the dispute and also on the merits of his non-employment. On that view, he dismissed the petition.2. Notwithstanding the prior proceedings, again the Government, on the assumption that an indust...
The Management of English Electric Company of India Ltd. Vs. the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ430Mad
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The second respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner-company and on 9th April, 1969, the following six charges were levelled against the second respondent:It has been reported against you: (i) that on 1st April, 1969 at about 1.15 P.M. you are instructed by the Senior Foreman, Mr. E. Balasubramanian, to stop all other work and carry out immediate welding of Sedgwick Punching Machine bed. Despite these clear instructions, you did not undertake this job, which resulted in delay in the repair of this vital machine, thereby adversely affecting production.(ii) that on 2nd April, 1969 at about 4-40 P.M., it was observed by the Superintendent of the Department, Mr. A. Sethumadhavan, that neither yourself nor any of the welders under your control were present in the welding section,(iii) that on 3rd April, 1969 you came to the section at about 7-36 A.M., and it was observed by the Superintendent, Mr. A. Sethumadhavan, that the men in your section were remaining idle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »