Chennai Court September 1978 Judgments
N. Subbanna Vs. N. Seshagiri Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ385
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The order of the Appellate Authority against which this civil revision petition has been filed is unsustainable. The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property which was in the occupation of the first respondent. The second respondent was the quandom owner of the property. I say quandom owner, because after filing the application for eviction against the first respondent and during the course of such proceedings, the) second respondent sold the property to the petitioner by a registered sale deed, dated 2nd July, 1976. Admittedly that was at a stage when the appeal filed by the unsuccessful, tenant in the eviction proceedings was pending. The Appellate Authority dismissed the application of the petitioner for his being brought on record in the appellate proceedings on the only ground that the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Reference was made to some Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Stanmore Estate and ors. Vs. the Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ97
Ismail, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raises a common question relating to the interpretation of Section 4(1)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Government Notification, dated 18th November, 1976 made in G.O. Ms. No. 1016, Labour and Employment, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, inter alia fixing revised minimum rates of wages (sic) in respect of tea estates and coffee estates in Shevaroy and Palani Hills. The Government Order stated that the Government was revising the rates of wages specified in columns 2 and 3 of the Schedule in respect of the employment in question which is a scheduled employment and having prescribed the basic rate of wages and the fate of dearness allowance, the order of the Government proceeded to state--The rates of dearness allowance noted above are linked to 1693 points of average consumer price index for Coimbatore Centr...
Tag this Judgment!G. Jyothemany Nagar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS68D
ORDERT. Rama Prasad Rao, C.J.1. This Appeal coming on for hearing on Tuesday, the 26th day of September, 1978 and on this day upon perusing the petition of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of M/s T.V. Natarajan and A.K. Lakshminarayan, Advocates for the Appellant, and of Mr. T. Changalvarayan, the Central Government Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order:(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice).2. This appeal is preferred under Section 23EE of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant is one Jyothmany Nadar. His premises was raided on 10.12.1966 and various incriminating documents involving violation of the Act were recovered on that date. The recovery also related to a sum of Rs. 29,900/- with which amount we are concerned in this appeal. On a scrutiny of the documents and on inv...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Mohammed Vs. Arumugham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ319
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal, one Abdul Mohammed, and respondent Arumugham Pillai were owners of neighouring properties. Disputes arose between them and they ended up in civil Court, each one filing a suit against the other for injunction. Both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court, and the respective appeals filed against such dismissal shared the same fate. The appellant Abdul Mohammed, however, took the matter in second appeal before this Court in S.A. No. 895 of 1970. While disposing of that second appeal, this Court passed the following decree:In the result, the decree of the trial Court confirmed by the lower appellate Court, is modified by granting a declaration that the suit wall belongs to the plaintiff (Abdul Mohammed) exclusively, subject to the right of the defendant (Arumugham Pillai) to rest his thatched roof thereon and that the plaintiff is further entitled to the accustomed supply of light and air through the ventilators as h...
Tag this Judgment!Thangavelu Naicker Vs. Muthukumara Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ369
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. One Thangavelu Naicker was appointed by two brothers Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram Chettiar to be a watchman or kavalkarar for their account cocoanut thope, Pulianthope and other clusters of trees in two survey numbers in which the own distinct portions. It is common ground that Thangavelu Naicker was paid Rs. 40 every year and was also entitled to take the ripe cocoanut leaves. His duties as kavalkarar included gathering, plucking and delivering the fruits of tamarind trees. In 1963, Thangavelu Naicker moved the Authorised Officer functioning under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Land Record of Tenancy Rights Act for a declaration that he was a cultivating tenant under the two brothers. He did not succeed in obtaining an order in his favour and an appeal from the decision of the Authorised Officer also failed. In those proceedings, it was held that Thangavelu Naicker was not a tenant, much less a cultivating tenant of Muthukumara Chettiar and Somasundaram...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balakrishnan Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT195(Mad)
Maheswaran, J.1. The scooter bearing registration No. TMC. 2286 driven by one Dhanapal the revision petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 840 of 1975 was intercepted at about 9-30 A.M. On 4-11-1971, near the Commercial tax checkpost at Hosur on the Bangalore Hosur trunk road in between 39 - 4 and 39 - 6 Kms. stones by P.W. 1, Rayamond, Inspector of Central Excise and P.W. 2, S.M. Nizar, Intelligence Officer, Revenue Intelligence, Madras, and other officers. On the pillion was the revision petitioner. The officers felt suspicious as the revision petitioner and the other person who was driving the scooter found it difficult to push the scooter as it was very heavy. PWs. 1 and 2 asked them the reason for the difficulty in pushing the scooter when both the revision petitioner and the other person confessed that they were carrying bars of gold. P.W. 4, Sadiq a mechanic, who was sent for by P.Ws 1 and 2, opened the petrol tank of the scooter in the presence of PW 5, village munsif and PWs 1 and 2 foun...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Reddiar Vs. Muthu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad173
Ramanujam, J.1. This letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan J. dismissing A.S. No 142 of 1973 (Pondicherry), Preferred against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 5 of 1972 on the file of the principal District Judge, Pondichery.2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Thirumalai Reddier of Thirubuvanai in Pondicherry State. He had five daughters and one son. One of his daughters is one Kumudavalli who was married in 1930 to one Venkatakrishna Reddier of Kanjanur in Gingy taluk within the State of Tamil Nadu, Thirumalai Reddier by a deed dated 27-6-1933 donated the suit properties to his daughter, Kumudavalli, Kumudavalli died issueless on 23-1-1941, leaving behind her husband, Venkatakrishna Reddier Andalammal, one of the sisters of Kumudavalli, claiming that she is the heir of Kumudavalli, sold the suit properties to one Krishnaswami Reddier on 16-5-1960. Coming to know of the said sale by Andalammal, Venkatakrishna Reddier claiming to be the sole h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Dhanabal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS228D
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This petition coming on for hearing on Monday the 4th day of September 1978 upon perusing the petition and the judgment of the Lower Courts and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Alagumalai, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Mr. Ilias Ali for the Central Goverment Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made thefollowing order:The scooter bearing registration No. TMC 2286 driven by Dhanabal, the revision petitioner, was intercepted at about 9-30 A.M. on 4-11-1971 near the commercial tax check-post at Hosur on the Bangalore-Hosur trunk road in between 39-4 and 39-6 Kms. stones by P.W. I. Raymond, Inspector of Central Excise and P.W. 2, S.M.Nizar, Intelligence Officer, Revenue Intelligence, Madras and other officers. On the pillion was another person by name Balakrishnan, the revision petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 881 of 1975. The officers felt suspicious as the revision...
Tag this Judgment!C. Abdul Salam Vs. A.A. Jaleel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ330
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the first respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1973 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore. The petitioner before the Tribunal by name Jaleel was employed as a cleaner in a lorry bearing No. M.D.U. 256 belonging to the appellant. On 29th May, 1972, he was travelling in the lorry with a load of sugarcane from Karur to Manapparai. On account of the alleged rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, the driver, the vehicle is said to have capsized at Malakoil near Tachanur village. The first respondent's legs got underneath the lorry causing grievous injuries to him. He was in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital as an in-patients from 29th September, 1972, to 21st November, 1972, during which period his left leg was amputated on 4th October, 1972. He claimed to have been undergoing treatment even later, and had also an artificial limb fixed after the wound was completely healed. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Limited Vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS107D; 1979(4)ELT65(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner impugns a demand notice relating to the levy of differential duty of excise and prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the notice. The petitioner is the owner of a textile mill known as Buckingham and Carnatic Mill situate in Perambur and its main object is to carry on business of manufacture and sale of textile goods. In the course of the manufacture of textile fabrics the petitioner produces an intermediary product viz., sodium bichromate liquor which is used for captive consumption in the processing of textiles. Sodium bichromate liquor is eventually used for the production of other derivatives known as (8) basic chromium sulphate liquor, (2) basic chrometan, (3) sodium bichromate crystals, (4) chrome oxide green, and (5) chromic acid. Sodium birchromate liquor is not sold or marketed by the petitioner, but is only used for captive consumption, viz., for conversion to basic chromium sulphate liquor for mineral khaki dyeing and for manufacture of basic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »