Chennai Court July 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.
Syndicate Bank Vs. B. Muniraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ106Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The first respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner-bank and his services were terminated by the General Manager by an order dated May 25, 1972. That order stated that if the first respondent so desired he might prefer an appeal against the order to the Custodian within thirty days from the date of serving of the order. Such an observation happened to be made in the order in view of the provisions contained in the Syndicate Bank Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). Rule 36(g) of the rules specifically provides that--Every officer against whom disciplinary action has been taken is entitled to appeal to the Chairman/Custodian in writing within 30 days of the receipt of the original order by him.Under these circumstances, the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Custodian and that appeal was dismissed on August 29, 1972, and the same was communicated to the first respondent on September 1, 1972. Thereafter,...
R. Thirumoorthy Vs. the Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1974
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ429
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The third respondent herein applied for the grant of a 'no objection certificate' on 11th June, 1973 and the same was granted by the Collecter of Coimbatore by order dated 1st September, 1973. Meanwhile, the petitioner sent an objection petition to the Collector which was received by the Collector on 2(sic)th July, 1973. From the order of the Board of Revenue in this case it is clear that after receipt of the objection petition, the same was not traceable in the office of the Collector and consequently the Collector proceeded to grant the 'no-objection certificate' to the third respondent as if there were no objections. On 22nd March, 1974, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of Reveune, and the Board of Revenue, by their order dated 18th April, 1974, rejected the appeal as time-barred. It is to quash this order of the Board of Revenue this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed.2. The Board of Revenue took the vi...
Union of India (Uoi) Owning the Southern Railway Represented by Its Ge ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ345
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Union of India, the defendant in O.S. No. 4654 of 1966, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant. The plaintiff entered service in the quondam M.S.M. Railway Company in 1929 and was promoted as Station Master in or about March, 1941. In 1958, to wit, from 25th August, 1958, the plaintiff's services were terminated in the purported exercise of the power vested in the Railways under Rule 148 of the Indian Railways Establishment Code. The constitutional validity of this Rule came up for consideration before the Supreme Court, though no doubt in ancillary proceedings, and the Supreme Court by its judgment in Moti Ram v. N.E. Frontier Railway : (1964)IILLJ467SC , dated 5th December, 1963 struck down the rule as unconstitutional. The plaintiff under Exhibit A-6 sought for his reinstatement on the strength of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court and requested the General Manager of the Southern Railway to reinstate him at an early date. ...
The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer Poonamallee Check Post and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC396(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals. The driver of a lorry carrying goods was found not to be in possession of the documents mentioned in Section 44 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In one of these appeals, the offence was compounded and the driver paid the fine. But in the other, against the notice served on the driver, the owner of the goods appeared and offered to pay the fine. But the departmental officials took the view that, since the notice had been given to the driver, no receipt could be given to the owner of the goods. The owner of the goods in each of these cases filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution which were allowed. The revenue has brought these appeals.2. On behalf of the appellant reliance is placed upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 2938 to 2940 of 1970 to which one of us was a party. In that case, agreeing with the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it was held that when the proc...
Rajan and ors. Vs. Kannikonda Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad117; (1975)1MLJ26
Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs to the extent to which the suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. They are the sons of the first defendant, Kannikonda Reddiar. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are minors represented by their elder brother, the first plaintiff, as their next friend. The suit was for partition and the question raised relates to the binding character of the alienations effected by the first defendant. The family was agriculturists. But the father also ventured upon a bus business. The learned trial Judge held that the alienations were justified and granted a decree only in respect of items which had not been alienated. In this appeal, the plaintiffs question the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge in respect of the alienations.2. The first alienation is a mortgage Exhibit B-3, executed by the first defendant for himself and as guardian for his three sons in 1958, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in favour of Konda Reddiar, the predec...
Soumyanarayanan Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad196
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, directing the appellant, who had previously divorced his wife, the respondent, to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 65 per mensem.2. Soumyanarayanan, the appellant, married Jayalakshmi Ammal, the respondent on 10th February, 1957. In O.P. No. 33 of 1964 on the file of the Court below the respondent instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the appellant was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the proceedings. In spite of contest by the husband the Court below passed an order on 1st September, 1964, annulling the marriage on the ground alleged by the wife. Subsequent to the date of annulment the divorced wife filed a petition for alimony at the rate of Rs. 100 per mensem with effect from 1st September, 1964. This petition was allowed by the Court below t...
Soumyanarayanan Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ18
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The husband against whom an order for maintenance has been passed on a petition presented by the wife, who succeeded in her petition for annulment of the marriage, is the appellant. The marriage was annulled by a decree on a petition filed by the wife on the ground that the husband was impotent from the date of the marriage. Subsequent to the annulment of the marriage, the wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The maintenance was ordered.2. The point that has been taken by the learned Counsel appearing for the husband is that Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable to a marriage which has been annulled by a decree of nullity and which thereby becomes void, for, according to the learned Counsel, a void marriage never existed, at all. The learned Counsel further contends that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is limited only to marriages which are voidable and not void ab...
Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad256
Kailasam, J.1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in all the courts below is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. He filed the suit for a declaration and possession of the plaint B schedule property. The property originally belonged to one Muthal Naidu. Defendants 1. 3. 5 and 7 are the sons of Muthal Naidu. Muthal Naidu executed a settlement deed Ex. B-1 dated 20-7-1931. by which he gave a life estate to Bangarammal. The material part of the document Ex. B-1 is extracted in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the first appellate court. It provided that the properties were given by way of settlement to Bangarammal and that she was to enjoy them from the date of the settlement. If Bangarammal had any children, they should get the properties, if Bangarammal had no children, after the lifetime of Bangarammal, the properties should vest in the heirs of the settlor it further provided that Bangarammal should not alienate any of the properties. Examining the clauses, it is clear that (1) t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. T.L. Dakshinamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad337; (1975)1MLJ269
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Union of India owning the Southern Railway and represented by its General Manager, who was the unsuccessful defendant in O. S. No. 5079 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court Madras, is the appellant. The plaintiff, a permanent employee in the Southern Railway, was placed under suspension on and from 8-3-1950 on certain charges levelled against him. Ultimately, under Ex. B 1, dated 15-6-1930 the plaintiff's services were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 22-6-1950. He was given a month's salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the Railway Board, but was not successful. Thereafter on 7-7-1953, he filed a suit O. S. No. 335 of 1956 seeking for a declaration that the order dated 15-6-1950 and contained in Ex. B1 was illegal and for setting aside the order and for arrears of salary as also for future salary. Under Ex B 27, the trial Judge dismissed the ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›