Chennai Court August 1978 Judgments
The Management of Hackbridge Hewittic and Easun Limited Vs. the Presid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ13
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is the management of Hackbridge Hewittic and Easun Limited, Tiruvothiyur, hereinafter called the company, and it had two factories, one at Tiruvothiyur which may be called Factory No. 1, where the company is manufacturing power transformers and it is functioning from 1956, and the other at Eravanur, which may be called Factory No. 2, and this was set up in the year 1966 for the purpose of manufacture of small transformers. It is the case of the company that these two factories are distinct and separate industrial establishments situate in two different villages and also having separate licences under the Factories Act. Accordingly it was their case that in law as well as in fact they are two separate industrial undertakings. It appears that at the time when Factory No. 2 was established, some of the experienced workers from Factory No. 1 were transferred with their consent to Factory No. 2 and later on some new workers also were employed in the Fa...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Fathima Vs. Mohamed Saleem (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad82
1. This second appeal raises a difficult problem in Mohamedan Law relating to maintenance of children by a father. The question is whether the father's obligation is purely personal or whether it attaches to his property in such a way as to be enforced even against an alienee from the, father. To find a solution to this problem learned counsel had to hunt for material in ancient texts of Islamic Jurisprudence. For, there was a surprising dearth of case-law on the subject And, as I shall presently show, the one solitary case on the subject figuring in our law reports contained title or no' reference to ancient sources.2. The question in this can arose this way One Mohamed All had three properties and two wives. Under a settlement of the year 1972 he settled all the three properties on his childless first wife, Ibrahim Fathima, to the entire exclusion of the second wife, Ummul Bashire, and her four minor children. The value of the settled properties was Rs. 55,000.3. The circumstances un...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.P.S. Muthuswamy Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagapattinam and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad153; (1979)1MLJ207
1. This writ petition reveals a shocking state of affairs and depicts in some measure the sorrowful state of things in some offices of the Government. The Indian public are no doubt accustomed to the slow motion of the wheels of Government. But even to members of such a resigned society, the facts of this case will give a jolt.2. Differences of opinion arose between the members of a Hindu joint family and that led to a disruption in the joint family status. A body of arbitrators was constituted to effect a partition of the family properties and give an award in that behalf. The arbitrators gave an award on 9th June 1959. There was no consensus among the coparceners about the acceptability of the award. That led to some members of the erstwhile joint family filing a suit O. S. No. 23 of 1959 in the District Court of Nagapattinam under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act for a direction being issued to the arbitrators to file the award in court. In response to the notice issued in the suit, the...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Fathima Vs. Mohammed Saleem (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ199
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal raises a difficult problem in Mohamedan Law relating to maintenance of children by a father. The question is whether the father's obligation is-purely personal or whether it attaches to his property in such a way as to be forced even against an alienee from the father. To find a solution to this problem learned Counsel had to hunt for material in ancient texts of Islamic Jurisprudence. For, there was a surprising dearth of case-law on the subject. And, as I shall presently show, the one solitary case on the subject figuring in our law reports contained little or no reference to ancient sources.2. The question in this case arose this way One Mohammed Ali had three properties and two wives. Under a settlement of the year 1972 he settled all the three properties on his first wife, Ibrahim Fathima, to the entire exclusion of the second wife, Ummul Bashira, and her four minor children. The document value of the settled properties was. Rs. 55,000....
Tag this Judgment!Rockweld Electrodes India Ltd. Represented by Its Director, Vishnu Pra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ494
Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1970 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chingleput, is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,676.01 made up of a sum of Rs. 21,507.01, being the amount payable by the defendant on account of the money spent by the plaintiff on his foreign training and Rs. 7,169 being the liquidated damages payable as per the contract of service, Exhibit A-4 between the parties.2. The case of the plaintiff was this: The defendant was employed under the plaintiff as Formulator from about September, 1965. He was subsequently deputed to take training in England on the plaintiff providing funds for the purpose. After completion of his training and return to India, he was to serve the plaintiff for the stipulated period in consideration of the plaintiff having sponsored and provided for his stay and training in England. An agreement, Exhibit A-4, dated 7th October, 1969, was entered into between the parties embodying the terms and condi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›