Chennai Court August 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.
P. Pathrakah Nadachi Vs. V. Subbiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad287; (1981)1MLJ463
Natarajan, J.1. This appeal has been referred to this Bench because Mohan J. before whom it came up for hearing, was of the view that there is a difference of opinion between Ananchaperumal v. Muthiah, 1944 Trav LR 595; (34 Trav LJ 503) (FB) and Shanmughathayee Animal v. Devasahayarn Nadar, AIR 1954 Trav Co 497: ILR (1954) Trav Co 826 (FB), on the question whether custom prevalent among the Hindu Nadar Christians in the matter of succession is obliterated by reason of the Travancore Christian Succession Act (Travancore Act 11 of 1092 M. E.) and hence an authoritative ruling by a Bench' of this court would be highly desirable. 2. The 3rd defendant in 0. S. No. 18 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost the case before the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, in A. S. No. 245 of 1972 on the file of this court is the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the order of their ...
S.V. Muthu and ors. Vs. Veerammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ502
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 in O. S. No. 213 of 1968, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the petitioners in the civil revision petition, which is directed against the order dismissing an application filed by them praying for the issue of a cheque in a sum of Rs. 13,259-23 in favour of their counsel. The suit, O. S. No. 213 of 1968 was filed by the respondents herein for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties and on 4th August, 1971, a preliminary decree was passed against which an appeal was filed to this Court in A. S. No. 646 of 1972, which also stood dismissed. The petitioners claim that as per clauses (8) and (9) of the preliminary decree, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,588-30 being the dividend due to the father of the petitioners from the 14th defendant in the suit who had deposited a sum of Rs. 13,704-60 into Court as per clauses (8) and (9) of the preliminary decree. The petitioners claim that out of this amount they are entitled to withdraw...
Management of Machine Tools and Ancillaries Castings (P) Limited, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: [1981(42)FLR279]; (1981)ILLJ408Mad
ORDERIsmail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 6th August, 1976 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2881 of 1973 filed by the appellant herein. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. Respondents 2 to 9 were the employees of the appellant therein and their services were terminated. The non-employment of those Persons was referred to the Additional Labour Court, Madras. The additional Labour Court by its award dated 9th February, 1973 directed reinstatement of the respondents 2 to 9. To quash this award, the writ petition having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The Labour Court as a fact found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Nevertheless it held that the dismissal was invalid on the ground that a notice to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on the respondents 2 to 9 was not issued to them before passing the orders in question as required by Order 17(4) (c) of the Model Standing Orders applicabl...
Somarajan and ors. Vs. Management of A.R.C. Engineering Works, Ambattu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ25Mad
1. This write petition has been filed by the Secretary. Ambattur Industrial Estate and Engineering Employees Union, Madras-50 on behalf of 17 workers belonging to the first respondent-management, Arc Engineering Works, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Madras-58 to quash to award passed by the Second Additional Labour Court, Madras on 13-12-1974 in I.D. No. 120 of 1973. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows : On and from 22-2-1972 the entire workmen of the first respondent-management went on strike to press certain demands which accounting to them were legitimate. Thereafter the management charge-sheeted the said 17 workmen for certain acts of misconduct indulged by them during the period of the strike. The management held a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer fund that the 17 workmen were guilty of the charge levelled against them. The management accepted the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed all the workmen from service by the order dated 26 July, 1972. At the ...
L.M.L.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. V.A.R. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad338
Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No. 37 of 1971 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai is the appellant. He filed the suit in forma pauperis for recovery of moneys due under a mortgage created by deposit of title deeds by the first defendant on 9-9-1946 in favour of the plaintiff's father, one Lakshmanan Chettiar. The case of the plaintiff was to the following effect: Defendants 1. 15 and 16 are brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family. A sum of Rs, 18000 belonging to the joint family of the plaintiff and his father was deposited with the first defendant for earning interest. The deposit was made in the name of the plaintiff's mother, one Paripoorna Achi. When the plaintiff's father demanded repayment of the amount in Madras and insisted on furnishing of security in the event of non-payment the first defendant executed a fresh deposit letter in favour of the plaintiff's father on 9-9-1946 for a sum of Rupees 20,000. The said letter was executed a...
The Management of Machine Tools and Ancillaries Casting (P.) Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ133
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J. dated 6th August, 1976 dismissing Writ Petition No. 2881 of 1973 filed by the appellant herein. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. Respondents 2 to 9 were the employees of the appellant herein and their services were terminated. The non-employment of those persons was referred to the Additional Labour Court, Madras. The Additional Labour Court by its award dated 9th. February, 1973 directed reinstatement of the respondents 2 to 9. To quash this award, the writ petition was filed and the writ petition having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed2. The Labour Court as a fact found that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Nevertheless it held that the dismissal was invalid on the ground that a notice to show cause why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed on the respondents 2 to 9 was not issued to them before passing the order in question as required by Order 17(4)(c) of the Mode...
L.R.M.L.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. V.Ar. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ232
S. Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No 37 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai is the appellant. He filed the suit in forma pauperis for recovery of moneys due under a mortgage created by deposit of title deeds by the first defendant on 9th September, 1946 in favour of the plaintiff's father, one Lakshmanan Chettiar. The case of the plaintiff was to the following effect:2. Defendants 1, 15 and 16 are brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family. A sum of Rs. 18,000 belonging to the joint family of the plaintiff and his father was deposited with the first defendant for earning interest. The deposit was made in the name of the plaintiff's mother, one Paripoornam Achi. When the plaintiff's father demanded repayment of the amount in Madras and insisted on furnishing of security in the event of non-payment, the first defendant executed a fresh deposit letter in favour of the plaintiff's father on 9th September, 1946 for a sum of Rs. 20,000. The ...
M. Vedachala Pillai and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ269
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions raises a common question.2. In the Presidency of Madras there were two enactments, the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act (II of 1894) and the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) in force Section 6 of the latter Act dealt with the re-grouping of villages or division of villages and the appointment of officers to such re-grouped or divided villages. The basic principle under the Act was to recognise the hereditary right to the offices enumerated in Section 3(1) of the Act Consistent with that basic principle Section 6(1) of the Act provided that in choosing persons to fill up such offices the Collector shall select persons whom he may consider best qualified from among the families of she last holders of the offices which have been abolished. Section 10 of the Act dealt with the succession to the offices and provided that, when a vacancy occurred in any of the village offices forming class (1) in section J...
R. S. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A. Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ258
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. The first defendant R. S. Muthuswami Gounder, who has lost in both the Courts, below, is appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff A. Annamalai filed the suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovering vacant possession of the same and also for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the superstructure put up on the property by the first defendant and for damages of Rs. 200 for use and occupation of the property by the first defendant at Rs. 100 per mensem from the middle of January, 1972.2. The suit property is a vacant site measuring 42 feet cast to west and 136 feet north to south on the west, and 126 feet north to south on the east, in T.S No. 907/2 in Erode Municipal Town, staled to be in three plats. According to the plaint, T.S. No. 907/2 belonged to defendants 5 to 7 and some other co-sharers. Defendants 5 to 7 got for their share in the partition effected under Exhibit A-1, dated 6th May, 1967 the portion ma...
A. Gulam Mohamed Vs. A.K.M. Pichai Maracair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ99
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord, who had lost his application for an order of eviction against the respondent herein under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Authorities below is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner is the owner of non-residential premises bearing door No. 27,Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction. The respondent is a tenant in occupation of this premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 90 payable according to the English Calendar on or before the 5th of every succeeding month. The petitioner stated that the respondent is not conducting any business in the premises in question and that from February, 1975 onwards the respondent had ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of more than four months without any reasonable cause and has thus rendered himself liable to be evicted. In addition, the petitioner also...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »