Chennai Court August 1975 Judgments
The Workmen of Saroja Mills (Private) Limited, Represented by the Nati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ131
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ of certiorari is to call for the records in I.D. No. 90 of 1974, dated 24th February, 1975 and quash the same.2. The National Textile Employees' Union, Coimbatore, is the petitioner. In the affidavit in support of the petition, it is stated as follows:3. A settlement, dated 10th of September, 1973 was reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) binding all workmen of the second respondent Mills, on issues relating to permanency of Badli Workers and their lay off. The petitioner Union and respondents 3 to 6, Unions, were parties to the settlement. Clause 14 of that Settlement, which gave rise to the present dispute is as follows:It is agreed to fill up the present vacancies, 28 badlies (selected on seniority) out of the complement of 32 and over and above this, 22 badlies in spinning shall be made permanent. The remaining badlies numbering 32 shall be made permanent on 1st April, 1974. The badlies i...
Tag this Judgment!Athirubam Vs. Lahia Bi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ432
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. I do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in having directed the arrest of the Government servant who was admittedly receiving a total salary of Rs. 350 per month. The petitioner's case is that certain deductions are made towards his Provident Fund loan, and certain other attachments are being effected pursuant to other money decrees against him. All these factors were noticed by the learned Judge. But according to him, there was no proof of such deductions towards loan or deductions towards salary attachment. He ought to have given a further opportunity to the petitioner to produce such evidence. He ought not to have discountenanced them and held the view that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the same. In any event, in the year of grace 1973 a salary of Rs. 350 even to a lower middle class family cannot be said to be an attractive one which could prompt a civil Court to issue a warrant of arrest in execution of a money decr...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. V.S.R. Ramaswami Chettiar and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC382(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In T.C. (R.) No. 452 of 1970 the question relates to the jurisdiction of the assessing officer to impose penalty under Section 16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, by a separate and independent order. The facts leading to this petition may now be noted.2. The respondent-assessees are dealers in timber. For the assessment year 1959-60, they were assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 3,86,284.27 as against Rs. 3,20,554.36 reported by them. On a surprise inspection of their place of business on 4th August, 1964, certain records were seized and on verification of these records, the assessing officer considered that the assessees had suppressed taxable turnover to the extent of Rs. 1,20,346.92. Proceedings accordingly were initiated under Section 16(1). After giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessees by a revised assessment order dated 18th December, 1964, the suppressed turnover of Rs. 1,20,346.92 was brought to assessment. In this assessment order...
Tag this Judgment!A. Velumani Vs. Angappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ154
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Following the decision of the learned Judge Govindarajachari, J., in Official Trustee of Madras v. Sethu Ghettiar : (1948)2MLJ194 , this revision petition has to be dismissed. The petitioner is a transferee from a debtor who was sought to be adjudicated insolvent by one of the creditors. The Court entertained the application of the creditor, examined him, accepted two documents filed by him and marked them as Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and thereafter said 'Petition is allowed adjudging the respondent insolvent '. Curiously enough the respondent therein did not file an appeal. But the respondent before me and in the lower Court in these proceedings being the transferee of the properties of the insolvent and who is really affected by the order of insolvency filed an appeal against the perfunctory order which resulted in the insolvency of his vendor. The tower Court rightly appreciated the evidence, accepted the appeal and remitted the matter for a fuller considera...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayaraghavan Vs. Mohammed Yakub Rowther (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ128
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. An interesting question has arisen in this civil revision petition. One Rokkaiya Animal was the owner of a property a portion of which was let out to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is actually in occupation of a thatched bunk of an extent 5' x 4'. The landlady filed an application under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground that the petitioner had committed wilful default and also on the ground that she wanted the leased premises for her husband's business of making articles from zinc and iron sheets. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. The appellate authority was not convinced that there was wilful default in the payment of rent, but he was, however, satisfied that the landlady was entitled to the possession of the building for, purposes of her husband's business. In the course of the hearing of the appeal, the landlady died and her husband, her son and her d...
Tag this Judgment!C. Balasundaram Vs. the Indian Overseas Bank, Represented by Its Agent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad306; (1976)1MLJ302
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is against the dismissal of an application under Section 20 of Act IV of 1938.2. The appellant had borrowed moneys from the Indian Overseas Bank, who is the respondent in this appeal, and he wanted to take advantage of the amendment brought in by Act VIII of 1973 to Act IV of 1938. As the debt had been incurred prior to 1st March, 1972, the appellant wants the decree, which has been passed in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, to be scaled down. Before applying for such scaling down, he applied under Section 20 of the Act to stay the execution proceedings. The Court below has held that the appellant is not so entitled to have the execution stayed, as the provisions of the Act are not applicable to debts due to the Bank. The correctness of this view is questioned in this appeal.3. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that only under Act VIII of 1973, a debt due to a banking company has been exempted from the provisions of Act IV o...
Tag this Judgment!N. M. Parthasarathi Vs. V. Dharmalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ349
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 91 of 1971 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vellore, filed an application under Order 8-A and Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying that a third party notice be issued to defendants 3 to 7 and thereafter, in the course of trial, the question of contribution by them to him on the basis of an alleged indemnity claimed by reason of the petitioner and defendants 3 to 7 being joint co-promisors in a negotiable instrument be decided. That application was dismissed. The short facts are as follows. The petitioner and defendants 2 and 3 (defendant 2 having died, defendants 4 to 7 have been brought on record as his legal representatives) were co-promisors in a promissory note--executed on 29th May, 1968 for a sum and consideration of Rs. 8,000. There is no dispute about the execution of the suit promissory note by the petitioner and defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff, having come to Court, has sought for a decree a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ770
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This is a reference under Section 395(2), Crl. P. C, by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, for consideration of the point whether the order of committal without examination of an approver is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 306, sub-sees. (4) and (5) of the Code, and hence illegal, and whether the said order has to be quashed and the case remanded to the committal Court for complying with the provisions of the said section.2. Mrs. Sheila Rajendran, appearing for the Public Prosecutor submits that the order of committal is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 306, sub-sees. (4) and (5), and as such the order of committal should be quashed.3. Before going into the illegality, if any, committed by the learned Magistrate, now I shall discuss the comparative position of law under the old and the new Code with regard to committal proceedings.4. Under Section 207-A subsection (4), in Chapter 18 of the old Code, the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Doraiswamy Gounder and anr. Vs. Parayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad66; (1976)1MLJ11
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 2395 of 1972. The petitioners executed a promissory note in favour of the respondents. There is an endorsement in the promissory note on 10th March, 1971, showing payment of Rs. 10. This endorsement is impugned as not genuine and therefore the petitioners wanted the documents to be sent to a handwriting expert. The learned District Munsif relying on the decision in Ramaswamy Konar v. Kamppa Konar 84 L.W. 348 dismissed the application.2. Subsequently another application was filed for sending the promissory note to Government handwriting expert. This application was also dismissed on 16th February, 1974 on the ground that an earlier application had been dismissed and that the subsequent application was only a ruse to avoid trial. Hence this revision petition.3. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that the decision relied on by the learned District Munsif would only be...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishna Nair and anr. Vs. Rugmoni Ammal Alias Valiamma Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ9
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The lower Court has rightly appreciated the position. Having regard to the circumstances stated by it in an elucidatory order, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. This is a suit in which, effectively, the plaintiffs are seeking to set aside a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 68 of 1966 on 24th October, 1972. The question is whether the lower Court was right in having directed the plaintiffs to evaluate the property as on the date of the filing of the suit or should it have said that the market value should be on the basis of the value of the property as disclosed in the earlier proceedings. In the earlier proceedings, the first plaintiff was not a party. It was the second plaintiff who was conducting the litigation as purchaser of the property from the first plaintiff. This distinguishing feature has to be borne in mind. The plaintiffs, therefore, have c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »