Chennai Court November 1978 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.
The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. Vs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Pvt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad73
1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of Padmanabhan J. on Appn. No. 2640 of 1978 in C. S. No. 26 of 1978, refusing to revoke the leave to sue granted to the first respondent plaintiff under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.2. The first respondent plaintiff, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe & Co. (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., filed the suit C. S. No. 26 of 1978 on the Original Side of this Court against respondents 2 to 4 for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff's appointment as the first defendant's agents at Madras, Kakinada and Visakhapatnam together with the plaintiff's function as the first defendant's co-ordinating agent for the first defendant's trade from India and as the first defendant's controlling agent for Cuddalore, Masulipatnam, Nagapattinam and Trivandrum is illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or their agents or servants or anybody claiming under or through them from interferin...
The Clan Line Steamers Ltd. Vs. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ349
C.J.R. Paul, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of Padmanabhan, J., on Application No. 2640 of 1978 in C.S. No. 26 of 1978, refusing to revoke the leave to sue granted to the first respondent-plaintiff under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent.2. The first respondent-plaintiff, M/s. Gordon Woodroffe and Co. (Madras) Private Limited, filed the suit C.S. No. 26 of 1978 on the original side of this Court against respondents 2 to 4 for a declaration that the termination of the plaintiff's appointment as the first defendant's agents at Madras, Kakinada and Visakhapatnam together with the plaintiff's function as the first defendant's co-ordinating agent for the first defendant's trade from India and as the first defendant's controlling agent for Cuddalore, Masulipatinam. Nagapattinam and Trivandrum is illegal, void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or their agents or servants or anybody claiming under or...
M. Ponnuswamy Vs. V.K.T. Periasami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1978
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ155
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 185 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli is the appellant herein. The plaintiff-first respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of Rs. 15,555.30 with subsequent interest on the foot of a foreign judgment.2. The case of the plaintiff against the appellant (first defendant) and second respondent (second defendant) is as follows : The defendants jointly executed a promissory note dated 1st October, 1962 for Rs. 11,000 to one Many a Pillai agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 per cent. per annum. The said Mariya Pillai endorsed and delivered the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed on 11th April, 1966 an action against the defendants in Case No. 7384 in the District Court of Nuwara Eliya Holden at Hatton (Ceylon) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,930 due upon the said promissory note. The plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that he was reliably informed that the defendants, ...
Sanga Pillai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad145; (1979)1MLJ85
ORDER1. This revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before its amendment, questioning the authority of the remand order passed by the Land Tribunal (Principal Sub-J), Tiruchirapalli, in C. M. A. No. 87 of 1974. The facts of the case are : The petitioner herein is an assignee of the surplus land acquired by the Government and the said assignment was made in his favour on 19-9-1973. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Pudukottai, on 19-9-1973, after carefully examining the claims of the applicants before him, allotted to the petitioner herein 2.02 acres of land in survey filed No. 71/3 as per Rule 8 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules 1965 as amended in G. O. Ms. No. 1870 dated 8-9-1969. Before such an assignment, the Authorised Officer declared the surplus land of the third respondent herein as 15 standard acres. The third respondent was given an opportunity as the trustee of the Govindadas Ganshyamdas Private Family ...
George Harris Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ65Mad
V. Balasubramaniyan, J.1. This is a petition for review of judgment of a Division Bench comprising Kailasam, Officiating Chief Justice, and me.2. Our judgment was delivered in a service case. It related to fixation of seniority of a Central Government servant. When we speak of seniority in Government service it is always seniority in a particular grade. Ordinarily speaking, this would depend on two factors : (i) length of service and (ii) continuity of employment. Length of service, generally, must be reckoned with reference to service in the same grade. And, continuity of service excludes any idea of interruption or break in employment. These are the basic requirements relating to fixation of seniority.3. There have, however, been refinements of these basic principles, and service regulations have tended to become more and more sophisticated. For instance, the idea of seniority has meaning only with reference to service in the same grade. But there is now a well-recognized refinement ...
B. Nathmall Vaid Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad218; (1979)1MLJ332
1. In this case, an interesting question of laws arises on certain undisputed facts. The appellant herein is the owner of Singara Estate situate at Mosinagudi village in Ootacamund taluk. On 16th June 1969, a tusker elephant was found dead in his patta land bearing S.No. 207 of Mosinagudi village which formed part of his estate. On 17th June 1969, the plaintiff informed the second defendant, of his intention to bury the carcase in his estate. The Forest Officer, Segur and a Veterinary doctor came to the spot and conducted an autopsy and on the instructions of the Forest Range Officer the Forester of Segur section took custody of the two tusks of the dead elephant from the plaintiff after giving an acknowledgment that the tusks would be returned to the plaintiff after getting formal approval of the Higher authorities. Since the second defendant did not returned the tusks, the plaintiff called upon the department to return the same. However, the plaintiff was informed by the second defen...
S. Muthuvel Vs. Murugesan Pillai Alias Balasubramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ325
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first respondent herein filed an application before the Authorised Officer under Section 61 of the Act bringing to his notice that the petitioner herein is having more than the cultivating tenant's ceiling area of 5 acres and requesting that the excess land over and above the cultivating tenant's ceiling area might be reverted to him as a landlord for self-cultivation. Notice of this application was issued by the Authorised Officer to the petitioner and he was asked to file his objections. The petitioner filed his objections stating that he was not in possession of any excess over and above the cultivating tenant's ceiling area, that he is in possession of 0.62 cents as owner and 368 acres as a lessee, and that, therefore, his total holding is only 4.30 standard acres which is well within the cultivating tenant's ceiling area as fixed under Section 60 of Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The matter was taken up for enquiry by the Authorised Officer and at that stage it w...
A.K. Vavallevvai Maricair Dharmam, Represented by A.K.V. Ahamed Marica ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ121
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The Authorised Officer, Nagapattinam, took proceedings under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961 in, respect of the lands held by a trust called A. K. Vavallavai Maricair Dharmam, Nagore, and declared an extent of 21-88 standard acres as surplus by a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act. Against such a declaration, the managing trustee of the said trust filed an appeal and in that appeal the draft statement issued by the Authorised Officer was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Authorised Officer for fresh disposal. After remand the Authorised Officer took up the matter for fresh enquiry. Before the Authorised Officer, the managing trustee, one Ahamed Maricair, was examined as P.W. 1. He deposed that the trust was created by his father A. K. Varalebbai Maricair in 1934, that the object of the trust was to hold fatihas and conduct public feedings and mouluds (ceremonies) during the months of Mohurrum and Rabiyul Avval of the Arabic e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›