Chennai Court April 1980 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.
Sundaram Industries Limited Vs. Secretary, Madurai Motor Labour Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ313Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition involves the interpretation of S. 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner-company Sundaram Industries Limited is engaged in the manufacture and sale of rubber components for motor vehicles. The company employs about 2,000 workers in the headquarters and the branches situated at difference places. The second respondent, the T.V.S. Workers Union Madurai is the recognised union so far as the petitioner-company is concerned. As a result of negotiations between the second respondent and the company standing orders were finalised and certified under the Act. No appeals were preferred under S. 6 of the Act, and consequently the standing orders became final as a result of certification. Long after the certification of the standing orders, the Secretary, Madurai Motor Labourers Union, Madurai, the first respondent, filed an application before the third respondent, for modification of the certi...
S. Saroja Vs. O.M.S.S. Sinnappa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ558
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. One Sinnappa Nadar was the absolute owner of a non-residential building bearing door No. 127, East Masi Street, Madurai Town. He is a partner along with three others in a partnership firm called as 'O.M.S. S. Sinnappa Nadar and Sons'. This partnership firm is carrying on rice hulling business. One of the assets of the partnership firm is a non-residential building, which is also situate within the Madurai City limits bearing door No. 2/2-A, Old Anuppanadi Road, Madurai.2. Sinnappa Nadar had let out the non-residential building of which he was the absolute owner viz.. the building bearing ' door No. 127. East Masi Street, to one Saroja, wherein the latter carried on a grocery business. In 1974, Sinnappa Nadar filed an application for the eviction of the tenant, Saroja, from door No. 127, East Masi Street, on the ground that he bona fide required that building to enable him to carry on a retail business of his own in paddy and rice. 3. The petition was opposed b...
Aravind Laboratories Vs. V. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ75
S. Swamikannu, J.1. This appeal s by the plaintiffs against the Judgment and decree, dated 17th day of November, 1976 in O.S. No. 36 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant or his agents by a permanent injunction from using the Trade Mark similar to the Trade Mark used by him as shown in Exhibit A-5 so as to be deceptively similar with the carton of the plaintiffs, as affixed in the plaint. The carton of the plaintiffs and Exhibit A-5 were directed to be annexed to the decree. The trial Court also observed that inasmuch as the plaintiffs themselves had not raised any objection for the use of the name 'Eyesol' by the defendant (Exhibit A-10) the defendant will be free to use the same name by printing the same in a different manner from that of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, the parties were directed to bear their own costs by the trial Court.2. The suit was for declarati...
Poongavanammal Vs. Chinnathambi Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ115
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Varadarajan, J., dated 14th August, 1975, rendered in Second Appeal No. 942 of 1972.2. One Dhandapani Reddy was adjudged insolvent in I.P. No. 4 of 1961 on the file of the District Court of South Arcot, Cuddalore, on 30th August, 1961. The suit property was sold by the Official Receiver under Exhibit A-1 dated 16th May, 1964, to the respondent herein and the said sale deed was registered on 11th September, 1964. In O.S. No. 446 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Villupuram, a decree was passed against the said Dhandapani Reddy. In execution of that decree, the suit property was brought to sale and the appellant purchased the same on 9th March, 1964, and the said sale was confirmed on 10th April, 1964, and she obtained delivery of possession of the property on 20th July, 1964. It will be seen that the Court-auction-sale in the particular case took place after the adjudication of Dhandapani R...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Madras Vs. K.T.M.S. Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR580(Mad)
Venugopal, J. 1. The assessee is an individual assessed in the status of 'Resident'. He was receiving income as a partner in a firm in Ceylon. In his capital account there was a credit of Rs. 55,000 on October 27, 1971. When asked to explain the source of the credit, the assessee contended that he explanation should be considered in the light of instruction given in the Circular No. 222/7/70-ITA-II, dated 5th August, 1971, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board's circular). The Board's circular was applicable to those persons who had migrated to India from Ceylon on or after November 1, 1964. According to the Board's circular any claim by the assessee that funds have been brought from Ceylon will be accepted if the assessee produces adequate evidence to reasonably satisfy the ITO that he has sufficient resources in that country to cover the remittance, provided the assessee had migrated from that country to India on or after the date spe...
M. Pitchai and anr Vs. Cholan Roadways Corporation and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ116Mad
1. The Short point that arises for consideration in these write petitions for certiorari is what exactly is the construction to be placed on Standing Orders of Cholan Roads Corporation Limited concerning the definition of 'workers'. Under Clause-2, sub-clause (a) 'worker' is defined as, any person employed by the management either directly or through any agency in connection with the company's business. In these two writs petitions the petitioners are foremen who are sought to be retired at the age of 55 which according to the Corporation would be the age of superannuation since the definition of worker contained in the certified standing orders would not embrace foremen. In the Counter Affidavit of the Corporation the duties concerning foremen in paragraph - 2 it is stated in W.P. No. 3780 of 1979 as follows : 'The petitioner while he was in the service of the respondent was a foremen in the workshop of the I respondent at Unit I in Tiruchirapalli. He was drawing a basic salary of Rs....
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kasiraja Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC337(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. In this tax revision case the point involved is whether tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioca thippi dust are articles of cattle feed falling within the scope of the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu under section 17(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on 4th March, 1974. The notification, so far as it is relevant, reads as follows : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes an exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act on the sale of - ........................ (2) Cattle feed, namely, hay or straw or rice bran or wheat bran or husk and dust of pulses and grams, but excluding - (i) brokens of pulses and grams; (ii) oil-cakes; and (iii) cotton seeds.' 2. The Tribunal took the view that tapioca thippi dust and the mixture of molasses with tapioc...
K. Joseph Thompson and anr. Vs. Nallathampi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ389
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed to revise the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in A. S. No. 192 of 1978 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in O.S. No. 461 of 1977 and decreeing the suit as prayed for with costs throughout.2. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 758.42 as principal and interest of Rs. 98.54 at 12 per cent. per annum from 25th May, 1976 on the allegation that the plaintiff/ respondent was subscribing to 1/6th share in a chit for which the monthly premium was Rs. 300, namely, Rs. 50 per mensem and he had paid actually a sum of Rs. 758.42 upto 25th May, 1976 in the course of 21 months as premium and that the defendants did not conduct the chit later and he was, therefore, en-titled to recover the aforesaid sum of Rs. 856.96. The respondent had sent a notice Exhibit A-1, dated 15th July, 1977 before the institution of the suit and it was returned unserved. He alleged that the chit was c...
Sayani Talkies Vs. Radha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1980
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ380Mad
1. The petitioner is in management of a cinema house. The respondent was an office boy in that theatre. One day in 1969 the Management dispensed with his services. He raised an industrial dispute about it. But, this dispute was not fought to a finish in industrial adjudication. Instead, even during conciliation proceedings, the parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. They called it a 'formal arbitration'. The Labour Commissioner or his nominee was to be the arbitrator and he was to go into the non-employment of the employee and also the question of consequential reliefs, if any. Following this agreement, the Dy. Commissioner of Labour who was duly nominated as the arbitrator, entered into the arbitration and gave his decision. Under his award, the management were directed to reinstate the employee and also to pay half his back wages. 2. Twelve years have passed since then. The award still remains on paper. The parties are all the while engaged in an interminable procedural w...
Loyd Bituman Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ363
S. Natarajan, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the XII Assistant Judge in O.S. No 6718 of 1973 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit, which was an action for recovery of the value of goods short-delivered by the Southern Railways came to be filed in the following circumstances:2. A consignment of 15 bales of Hessian cloth was booked by the plaintiffs from Shalimar on 22nd August, 1972, and the consignment reached Salt Cottaurs at Madras and was unloaded on 12th September, 1972. On 1st November, 1972, the plaintiffs' representative went to take delivery of the consignment. The goods agent of the defendants informed that only 5 bales were available and the balance, 10 bales, were not traceable. Giving time to the goods agent till the next day to trace the missing bales, the plaintiff's representative returned and went to the good shed once again on 2nd November, 1972. On that day, the defendants' agent, delivered 4 bales and retained th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »