Chennai Court January 1977 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.
K.P. Periyannan (Fit Person) Sri Venugopalakrishnaswamy Temple Vs. Dei ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ362
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. An extent of 3-48 acres of dry land in S, No. 795 in Boganapalli Village was acquired admittedly for a public purpose. A compensation of Rs. 27,653-47 was awarded. The title to the property admittedly stands in the name of Venugopalakrishnaswami Devaru of Boganapalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. There is no dispute about the title at all. But in the present proceedings, the race is between claimants 1 and 4, who claim that they are entitled to be paid the interest which accrues from and out of the above corpus for them to conduct the ritual and affairs of Venugopalakrishnaswami Devaru, and claimants 2 and. 3, who claim as the hereditary archakas entitled to possession of the lands compulsorily acquired. According to the claimants 2 and 3, they are entitled to the Interest to enable them to render archana service to the deity.2. Claimant No. 1, is the deputy of claimant No. 4, who in turn is the Managing Trustee of this temple, having been so appointed by the Hindu ...
Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Estate of Late Chandravadanam Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR50(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - Under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appeal filed by the accountable persons on July 17, 1969, before the Appellate Controller against the levy of penalty was competent in view of the proviso to section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act and in restoring the appeals back to the Appellate Controller for disposal according to law ?' (T.C. Nos. 209 and 210 of 1972).At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty another question was referred in the same case as directed by this court and that question runs as follows :'Whether the Tribunal was also right in giving a finding on merits of the levy of penalty while deciding the competency of the appeal filed before the Appellate Controller ?' (T.C. Nos. 100 and 101 of 1977).The questions referred t...
K.S. Ramaswamy and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1977
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ211Mad
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition is for declaration declaring the Life Insurance Corporation -Development Officers (Alteration of Remunerations and other Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 197f, dated 8-4-1976 and the consequential Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Amendment Regulations, 1976, dated 22-4-1976 as ultra vres of Section 11(1)(2) and Section 49 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and also as violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, in so far as it affects the petitioner.2. On 1-12-1955 the petitioner joined the service of the United India Life Assurance Company, which was carrying on life insurance business as an organiser. Under the terms and conditions of the services of the company, he was a whole time employee. His functions as organiser were to recruit, guide and supervise the insurance agents who were appointed by the company on his recommendations and to see that maximum poss...
V. Ramaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad238
Balasubramanyan, J.1. The Syndicate Bank, which is the respondent in this appeal, obtained a decree against the appellants for payment of Rs. l,50,766-89 and costs, on a charge of 4000 shares in Pankaja Mills Ltd., and 101 shares in Pioneer Fertilisers Ltd. To execute the decree aforesaid, the Bank filed E. P. No. 380 of 1975 in the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for attachment and sale of the judgment debtors properties. But the properties sought to be proceeded against in execution were not the joint stock company shares mentioned in the decree as a charge, but were quite different. They consisted of an item of immoveable property which was a cinema house called 'Central Theatre' and various item of machinery, furniture and fittings therein. The judgment-debtors resisted the execution. They submitted that the Bank should not be allowed to proceed against the Central Theatre before exhausting the remedy against the shares over which the decree had declared a charge.2. The learned Subordinate ...
Vasudevan, R.M.S. Union Vs. Lotus Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ483Mad
ORDERKoshal, J.1. Vasudevan, the petitioner before me is in employee of the Lotus Mills Limited, Podanur (hereinafter referred to as the mills) which is a manufacturing concern. The employees of the mills were on strike for the period from 1st January, 1966 to 3rd of February. 1966. During that period they had two holidays, viz., the 15th day of January, and 26th of January. The petitioner claimed wages for the two holidays in spite of the fact that he had been on strike, in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section(1) of Section 5 of the Tamilnadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by means of an application filed before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore who dismissed the same on the ground that wages are payable under the Act only for holidays on which an employee was willing to work a condition which the petitioner did not fulfil by reason of the fact that he was on strike as ...
V. Ramaswami Naidu, Formerly Managing Director, Kadri Mills Limited an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1977
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ420
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The Syndicate Bank, which is the respondent in this appeal, obtained a decree against the appellants for payment of Rs. 1,50,766-89 and costs, on a charge of 4000 shares in Pankaja Mills Limited, and 101 shares in Pioneer Fertilisers Limited. To execute the decree aforesaid, the Bank filed E.P. No. 380 of 975 in the Sub Court, Coimbatore for attachment and sale of the judgment-debtors' properties. But the properties sought to be proceeded against in execution were not the joint stock company shares mentioned in the decree as a charge, but were quite different. They consisted of an item of immoveable property which was a cinema house called 'Central Theatre' and various items of machinery, furniture and fittings therein. The judgment-debtors resisted the execution. They submitted that the Bank should not be allowed to proceed against the Central Theatre before exhausting the remedy against the shares over which the decree had declared a charge.2. The learn...
Md. Salih Sahib Vs. T.C. Adam Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad368
ORDER1. One Salih Sahib, whom I shall hereafter refer to as the plaintiff, filed a suit against one Adam Sahib, whom I shall call the defendant, in the District Munsif Court, Chingleput, in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the owner of a piece of land bearing S. No. 21 of an extent of 4 acres and 60 cents in Panaiyur village, Madurantakam taluk. Hereafter I shall refer to this land as the suit land. The defendant owns the land bearing S. No. 20. This land lies immediately to the north of the suit land. A ridge had always separated, and still separates, the two lands, S. No. 21 and S. No. 20. The plaintiff sued the defendant, complaining that on 2-7-1971, the defendant high-handedly trespassed on the ridge. According to the averment in the plaint the defendant's trespass consisted in simply reducing the width of the ridge. The original width of the ridge, it was stated, was 1 1/2 ft. The complaint was that this was reduced by the defendant to 1/2 ft. The plaintiff claimed t...
Simpson and Co. Limited Vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ161Mad
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order dated 30th July, 1976 made by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras-5 (first respondent) in Lay-Off Application No 2 of 1916.2. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner is engaged in engineering industry and has among others, a plant called Plant No. II at Sembiam, Madras-11.3. Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act) was enacted by the Parliament called the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act of 1976 Central Act 32 of 1976)(hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act). One of the sections introduced by the Amendment Act was Section 25M. The broad feature of Section 25M was that it required an establishment covered by the new Chapter V (B) within which the establishment should apply for permission to effect lay-off of its workmen when such lay-off was due to shortage of power or natural calamities. By Sub-section (2) of Section 25M it was provided where workmen of such establishmen...
In Re: Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2040
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner, the accused in C. C. 21 of 1974 on the file of the Special Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, has preferred this revision petition challenging the propriety and legality of the judgment passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli in C. A. 104 of 1974 on his file, confirming the conviction Under Section 65 of the Madras City Police Act and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one week, passed by the trial Magistrate.2. The crux of the indictment as per the prosecution case is that the petitioner on 18-4-1974 at 9 a. m. was found to have been in possession of 19 brass plates weighing 57 kilograms, all worth Rupees 1,500/-, suspected to have been stolen or fraudulently obtained and for possession of which he had failed to satisfactorily account. The prosecution examined two witnesses besides marking Ex. P-1, mahazar dated 18-4-1974, and the material objects M. Os....
A.M. Kulandaiswamy Vs. S. Sherfuddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2046
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the owner of a fruit shop in Tirumayam, who moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pudukottai. for an order Under Section 145 Cr. P. C. being issued in his favour. It appears Tirumayam Panchayat claimed the site on which the petitioner has put up his shop as belonging to it and that the petitioner had been permitted to put up a superstructure on the site on rental basis. A decree was obtained against the petitioner for arrears of rent and in execution of the decree his moveables were attached. Thereafter on 30-4-1976, according to the petitioner, the menials and scavengers of the panchayat trespassed into his shop and 'without paying heed to his representations, removed forcibly the. plank shutters of the shop and left the shop open'. There was also a rumour in the town that the superstructure also would be demolished shortly. Apprehending further highhanded action by the Panchayat Authorities, the petitioner moved the local Police...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »