Chennai Court September 1975 Judgments
Karuppa thevar and anr. Vs. Ganapathi Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ268
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiffs, who failed in both the Courts below, are the appellants. The first appellant (first plaintiff) filed OS- No 137 of 1952 against the deceased second defendant and his two other brothers in the District Munsif's Court, Tiruppur, for partition and separate possession of an one-fourth share in certain family properties and obtained a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of one-fourth share and costs of Rs. 428.51 on 25th March, 1957. Exhibit A-3 is the certified copy of the preliminary decree. Subsequently, he sold some properties to the second appellant (second plaintiff) and both the appellants filed an application for passing a final decree in I.A. No. 810 of 1959 on 25th October, 1960. Both the appellants filed E.P. No. 341 of 1962 for delivery of possession of the one-fourth share allotted to the first appellant and for attachment of the one-fourth share of the second defendant in three items of properties for realisation of the...
Tag this Judgment!Tirunelveli District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ456Mad
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. During an inspection under Section 66(1) of the said Act, it came to light that certain stocks of the society were misappropriated through falsification of accounts by one Kalidas, a godown clerk, with the connivance of the second respondent who was, at that time, the manager of the office. The Deputy Registrar, in the inspection report, stated that there is a prima facie case for launching prosecution against both the godown clerk and the second respondent. It appears, subsequently the godown clerk resigned his job. The Deputy Registrar had also launched a complaint with the police for investigation in the matter. The Registrar, to whom a report was sent by the Deputy Registrar, considered that the continuance in office of the second respondent as manager of the petitioner-society would be deterimental to the interests of the society and, therefore, in exercise of his powers ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Abdul Wahab Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ92
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner joined the Department of Salt and Customs in the year 1937 as a clerk and was later transferred to the Central Excise Department in 1943. He was then promoted as a Sub-Inspector of Central Excise ir the year 1945. Later, the same post was upgraded to the post of Inspector and the petitioner served as Inspector of Central Excise till 13th May, 1960 when he was compul-sorily retired from service as a result of certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of compulsory retirement dated 13th May, 1960 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, the third respondent herein, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, the second respondent herein. Since the said appeal had been dismissed, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said appellate orderdated 23rd May, 1962 confirming the order of the third respondent ompulsorily retiring him from serv...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Gabriel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: 1977CriLJ135
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The appellant who was charged of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but convicted under Section 304, Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, has preferred this criminal appeal, challenging the abovesaid conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1974 on his file.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The deceased, Savariaradimai, had two sons viz., Chelliah and Augustin. Chelliah's son is one Anjalees, who is examined as P.W. 1. The deceased was doing business in tamarind. P.W. 1 was assisting and helping the deceased in his trade. So, the deceased used to give him a share in the profits. This was resented by the second son of the deceased, Augustin. On account of this, there was enmity between P.W. 1 and Savariaradimai on the one side and Augustin on the other side. It is the case of the prosecution that Augustin, with a ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ram Mohan Vs. J. Kasthuri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad271; (1976)1MLJ163
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition to transfer the pauper suit numbered as O. P. No. 254 of 1974 together with all the pending applications on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge Madras to the Original Side of this Honble Court for trial and disposal according to law. For the purpose of this transfer suffice it to state that the petitioner herein has filed the Orignal Petition for partition and separate possession of his i share in the suit properties before the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Madias. Subsequent to the filing of the pauper suit for partition, the respondent in that Original Petition, who is no other than the mother of me petitioner herein, died. Hence the petitioner herein has filed an application stating that after the death of his mother who was the respondent in that Original petition, he is, entitled to get a share of 3/4 in the suit properties instead of 1/2 share and the value of such 3/4 share is admittedly, more than Rs. 50,000. This amend...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ236
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I.D. No. 1 of 1973. The dispute was between the employers of the Bank of Madura and their workmen and the dispute was referred by the Government of India in their order No. L. 12011/19-72-LR-III dated 20th December, 1972. The petitioner Bank is one of the B-Class banks within the meaning of the Bank Awards. Some time in the beginning of 1972, the petitioner Bank held an examination for recruitment of about 400 apprentices. After the written examination, there was an oral examination conducted by three selection committees, each committee consisting of a member of the Board of Directors and two Officers of the Bank. Out of the 400 people called for interview, 385 candidates were selected, and orders of appointment were issued to them appointing them as apprentice-clerks in the Bank. Thirty-nine did not report and the rest of them reported for duty du...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sama Iyer and ors. Vs. O.K.K. Appachi Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ382
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the sons of one Subbier and the fifth plaintiff is the widow. The defendant is the Court auction-purchaser in execution of a money decree against the vendor of Subbier. Subbier died in 1960. The suit properties belonged to the family of one Srinivasa Iyer who was running a bank at Gobichettipalayam. Subbier had transactions with the said Srinivasa Iyer, the banker. The amount of deposit made by Subbier came to about Rs. 9,000 in or about 1958. On 17th October, 1958 Srinivasa Iyer and his eldest son Subbarathnam are alleged to have entered into an agreement t for the sale of the suit properties in favour of Subbier for Rs. 9,000. Subbier was said to have been put in possession of the property on that date. Subbier was alleged to have dealt with the land as his own. However, a sale deed was not executed in favour of Subbier till the death of Srinivasa Iyer. His legal representatives were thereafter called up...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrappa Govinda Mudali Vs. Govindaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ365
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the Appellant The plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of his absolute title to the suit property measuring 2 acres out of 3.17 acres comprised in survey No. 164 of Pettai Kandigai Village, Tiruttani Taluk, or for his possessory title to the above property and for a permanent injunction against the defendant or in the alternative for possession of the property. According to the plaintiff the suit property belonged to one Lingappa, who was in possession and enjoyment thereof. On 12th October, 1956, Lingappa sold the property to one Kuttiappa Mudali for a sum of Rs. 300 with an obligation to reconvey the property on receipt of Rs. 300 within five years from the date of the sale-deed. Thus, the right of reconveyance of the property was available till 11th October, 1961. As Lingappa had no money to get back?he property, the plaintiff paid Lingappa the sum of Rs. 300 so as to enable him to take back the said property. Lingappa got back the property. H...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasamy Moopanar Vs. Rathnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ363
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, who is running an elementary school on the suit property, filed a suit against the defendant for an injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. The site, on which there is said to be a school building, was classified as Government poramboke or natham land. The plaintiff claimed that he and his predecessor-in-title had been in occupation for over 70 years. The defence was that the suit property belonged to the defendant and that under a licence granted by his father, the plaintiff was running the school in the property. The defendant relied on a partition of 1918, in which this property was dealt with by his family. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.2. The trial Court took the view that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had established title to the suit property. It, however, granted an injunction, as the plaintiff was in possession...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sambandam Vs. Secretary Ry. Employees' Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1975
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ342Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether for the period of suspension between December 6, 1966, and November 20, 1967, the appellant, who was paid fifty per cent of his normal wages, was entitled to the other half, though, eventually, the disciplinary proceedings, against him ended in his dismissal. The full wages were denied and, even before the order of dismissal was made, the appellant went before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and wanted the other half of the wages to be computed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That was ordered. But the first respondent got this order quashed by Palaniswamy. J.2. The learned Judge referred to by-law 59 of the first respondent which read:In the matters other than the Provident Fund, like hours of work, scales of pay, leave allowances, festival and other allowances, gratuity and medical relief, the staff of the Bank shall be governed by the Railway Rules effective from time to time.and pointed out that R...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »