Chennai Court February 1976 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.
Karuppanna Gounder and anr. Vs. Thirumalsi Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad75
Ismail, J.1. It is unfortunate that this matter has to be remanded again to the lower appellate Court, and a suit which was instituted in 1965 has yet to be kept pending. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 598 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Erode are the appellant herein. The suit was one for redemption of Ext. B-2 mortgage and for recovery of possession. The case of the appellants was that Ext. B-2 was a mortgage by conditional sale and therefore they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. As against this, the case of the respondents was that Ext. B-2 constituted an absolute sale accompanied by an agreement for re-purchase and therefore, the suit for redemption would not lie. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal preferred by the defendants in the suit, the lower appellate Court, on an earlier occasion reversed the conclusion of the learned Principal District Munsif who decreed the suit. The matter came up to this court in Second Appeal No. 667 of 1960. By judg...
N. Karuppannan Vs. Additional Registrar of Trade Union and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ132Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. Whether the Pasteur Institute of Southern India, Coonoor, and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Madras, arc industries within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the common question for decision in these otherwise unrelated matters. By an order dated May 22, 1970, the State Government declined to refer for adjudication the non-employment of one A. Jesudoss in the Institute, and certain demands raised by its work-men through the Institute Staff Union. The Government did so on the view that the institution could not be considered as an industry for the purposes of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Staff Union unsuccesstully moved under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the State Government to reconsider the question of making a reference. 'That is the subject-matter of the will appeal. The Additional Registered of Trade Unions, Madras, by an older dated July 24, 1973, cancelled the registration dated A...
Manickatahammal and ors. Vs. Nallasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad83
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The second to the fourth defendants in O. S. No. 246 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. One Veerappa Pillai, whose brother's son is the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale marked as Ex. A-1 in this case. The plaintiff's case is that during 1943 to 1956 in consideration of the confidence, affection and regard which he had to his uncle, Veerappa Pillai, he deposited with him various sums of money to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- In fact such deposits were made from his savings while he was exercising a calling of his own or a profession of his own and it was at the instance and persuasion of Veerappa Pillai that these deposits were made during the aforesaid years. The plaintiff claims that between 1943 and 1946 he was a bus conductor and a checking inspector and was saving considerable sums from his salary; during 1950 and 1953, he was a sugarcane contractor supplying sugarcan...
Kistappa Naicker and anr. Vs. Elumalai Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad38
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 291 of 1970, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein. One Palani Ammal is the mother of the first appellant herein. The suit properties stand in the name of Palani Ammal, purchased by her under Ex. A-2 dated 3-9-1949 and Ex. A-3 dated 17-8-1965. The respondent purchased the suit properties from Palani Ammal under Ex. A-1 dated 22-9-1969. Alleging that the appellants unlawfully trespassed on 5-3-1970, cut and removed the crops raised by the respondent, the suit was instituted for declaration of the respondent's title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession with mesne profits.2. The case of the appellants was that though the suit properties were purchased in the name of the first appellant's mother, the consideration for the purchase of the properties came from the appellants' father viz., Madurai Naicker, and, therefore, the suit properties were the joint family properties, an...
Madiammal Vs. Glory Chandrakantha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad209
1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but lost in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property which is one acre of land with a terraced building in S. No. 153/6 of Jegathala Village in Coonoor Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the property. Her case is that the suit property was purchased for Rs. 8,000 under Exhibit B-5, dated 8th December, I9I4, by her brother, Mutha Gowder (P.W 1) and one Boja Gowder, the tather of Sevanan (D.W. 1), who were partners of 'Mutha Gowder and Company'. There was a partition subsequent to the death of Boja Gowder in the begining of 1957 after dissolution of the partnership had taken place prior to 1957 between P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 on 1st December, 1957 According to the appellant, Exhibit A-1 dated 1st December, I957, which is unregistered is a partition list signed by P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 as well as the panchaya...
In Re: Gopalakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ50
Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by nine persons who were accused in S.C. No. 80 of 1969 on the file of the Court of Session, East Thanjavur Division at Nagapattinam. They, along with 12' others, were committed to the Court of Session, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. by the Special Additional First Class : Magistrate, Nagapattinam for various offences including an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The petitioners 1 to 6 were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge in. S.C. No. 80 of 1969 for offences under Sections 148, 436, 307, 436 read with Sections 149, 326 read with 149, I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10' years. Petitioners 7 to 9 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. On appeal by petitioners 1 to 6 against the conviction and sentences passed against them and the appeal preferred by the Public Prosecutor in C.A. No. 593 of 1971 against the acquittal of petitioners 7 to 9, the High Court allowed the a...
Madiammal Vs. Glory Chandrakantha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ353
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but lost in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit property which is one acre of land with a terraced building in S. No. 153/6 of Jegathala Village in Coonoor Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her possession of the property. Her case is that the suit property was purchased for Rs. 8,000 under Exhibit B-5, dated 8th December, I9I4, by her brother, Mutha Gowder (P.W 1) and one Boja Gowder, the tather of Sevanan (D.W. 1), who were partners of 'Mutha Gowder and Company'. There was a partition subsequent to the death of Boja Gowder in the begining of 1957 after dissolution of the partnership had taken place prior to 1957 between P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 on 1st December, 1957 According to the appellant, Exhibit A-1 dated 1st December, I957, which is unregistered is a partition list signed by P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 as we...
T.i. Cycles of India Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ83Mad
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition raises somewhat an interesting question. On 16th March, 1965, the second respondent was suspended pending certain enquiries into the charges. Ultimately, after certain criminal proceedings he was dismissed from service on 29th July, 1967. Thereupon, the management (writ petitioner) filed Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1967 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By an order dated 6th January, 1969, the dismissal was upheld by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. After this, the second respondent filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act claiming backwages for the period during suspension, bonus and gratuity. As far as the latter two claims relating to bonus and gratuity, there is no dispute.2. However, what the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit is that inasmuch as in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1967 the dismissal having been approved by the Industrial Tribunal, it would follow that the di...
Thirumalaiswami Gounder Vs. Parvathiammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad40
1. The fifth defendant in O. S. No. 299 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore is the appellant. One Thangamuthu Gounder died possessed of the suit properties, he having secured the same under a partition in his family in or about July 1932 as seen from Ex. A-3 dated 22-7-1932. He left behind, him his mother (the first plaintiff), his eldest daughter (the second plaintiff) his widow (the first defendant) and his minor daughter (the second defendant) as his surviving heirs. He died in 1966 and, therefore, succession to his estate has to be determined with reference to the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. It is not in dispute, therefore, that the two plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other would each be entitled to a moiety in the properties of Thangamuthu Gounder. In those circumstances the plaintiffs instituted the present action for partition of the suit properties which admittedly belonged to Thangamuthu Gounder, into two equal shares and...
Thirumalaiswami Goundar Vs. Parvathi Ammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1976
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ402
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The fifth defendant in O.S. No. 299 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore is the appellant. One Thangamuthu Gounder died possessed of the suit properties, he having secured the same under a partition in his family in or about July, 1932 as seen from Exhibit A-3 dated 22nd July, 1932. He left behind him his mother (the first plaintiff), his eldest daughter (the second plaintiff), his widow (the first defendant) and his minor daughter (the second defendant) as his surviving heirs. He died in 1966 and, therefore, succession to his estate has to be determined with reference to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It is not in dispute, therefore, that the two plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 2 on the other would each he entitled to a moiety in the properties of Thangamuthu Gounder. In those circumstances the plaintiffs instituted the present action for partition of the suit properties which admittedly belonged to Thangamuth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›