Chennai Court November 1975 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.
T. Muthukumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ273
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner was one of the four applicants for the post of village headman of Senthurai village. The Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent herein, found that the petitioner and the fourth respondent had all the requisite qualifications, but that the petitioner is to be preferred for the reason that he had got previous experience of eleven years. On appeal by the fourth respondent, the second respondent cancelled the petitioner's appointment and appointed the fourth respondent instead as village headman on the ground that as between the petitioner and the fourth respondent who had the requisite qualifications, the petitioner was over-aged and therefore, the fourth respondent was to be selected. Aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner went before the first respondent, but without any success. The petitioner has now approached this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent which...
N.K.S. Rajarathinam Chettiar Vs. the Regional Director, Employees Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ309
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two appeals are against the order of the Employees Insurance Court (District Judge, Salem) dismissing two applications filed by the proprietor of a flour mill in which he prayed that the claim made by the Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation should be cancelled. There were two claims by the Corporation, one for employees' contribution and the other for employers' contribution. The proprietor of the flour mill contended that his mill is not a factory as defined under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and that therefore the claims made by the Regional Director of the Employees State Insurance Corporation are not valid. The Employees Insurance Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner before it, and hence, the two appeals by him.2. The admitted fact is that during the relevant period, there were 14 workmen and 5 clerks working in the flour mill. The Inspector of the Corporation h...
K.A. Abdul Khader Vs. the Deputy Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad233; (1976)2MLJ78
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. On the basis of some reliable information that the petitioner had received a payment from a local person unauthorisedly as per the instructions of a person resident outside India, his person was searched under Section 19-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 while he was travelling in a bus at Tambaram on 12th May, 1973. The search resulted in the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 50,000 and two bus tickets. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that on interrogation, the petitioner voluntarily admitted in writing that the amount was received at Madras on the previous day from an unknown person as per theinstructions of his uncle Sri Latheef of No. 9, Queen St., Penang, and he was carrying the money to his native place Abhiramam, Ramanathapuram District, for the purchase of property for his uncle as instructed in the letter. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate w...
Periaswamy Muthiriar Vs. Palaniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ347
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The second defendant, who is the son of the first defendant, is the appellant. The respondent, who purchased the 'A' schedule property, a vacant site, from the first defendant, filed the suit for general partition of the 'B' schedule properties and allotment of the 'A' schedule property to her share and also for the relief of accounting from 12th October, 1962, the date of the purchase of the 'A' schedule property from the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,500. The first defendant did not contest the suit. The appellant's contention was that the proper Court-fee has not been paid and that the appellant was not liable to account for profits. The respondent paid additional Court-fee of Rs. 158 and both the Courts below have found that the Court-fee paid thereafter was correct. The learned District Munsif granted a decree of partition as prayed for and also for accounting from 12th October, 1962, without any discussion, although the appellant has contended that he is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›