Chennai Court February 1981 Judgments
The Management, Sri Jayaram Motor Service Vs. Pitchammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ388
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the orders of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai in W.C. Application No. 6 of 1973. One Pitchammal, wife of Vanniappa Pillai residing in Vedabadra Sayanar East Street, Srivilli-puttur, filed the abovesaid W.C. Application No. 66 of 1973, against the management of the Jayaram Motor Service at Srivilliputtur. In the application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation it is stated that her husband late Vanniappa Pillai was a workman employed by the opposite party for 17 years prior to 13th June, 1972, and on the 13th June, 1972, he died in the course of his employment. Her husband Vanniappa Pillai left the house for duty on 13th June, 1972, and on the way to the workshop due to heart attack he fell down and was given treatment and subsequently died. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 7,000. In the counter-statement the opposite party admitted that Vanniappa Pillai wa...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Calcutta Insurance, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas608(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two claim petitions filed under s. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the widow of one Dharmaraj and the widow and children of one Thirumal, both of whom died in a motor vehicle accident. 2. On August 22, 1972, at about 12.50 p.m. the said Dharmaraj and Thirumal were going on a motor cycle MSQ 6512, Dharmaraj riding it and Thirumal sitting on the pillion. When they were going in the Kodambakkam bridge in Arcot Road, the motor car MSR 5018, which was coming in the opposite direction, suddenly dashed on the motor cycle as a result of which the right leg of Dharmaraj was cut off below the knee, and thrown to a distance of 12 feet and both the legs of the pillion rider, Thirumal, were fractured. Both the injured were taken to the Government Royapettah Hospital, but in the evening of the same day, both of them succumbed to the injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor car, MSR 5018, by its...
Tag this Judgment!B. Pankajammal (Proprietrix), Baskaran Motor Service, Polur (N.A. Dist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1981
Reported in: [1982(44)FLR422]; (1982)ILLJ261Mad
1. One J. D. Chandran filed C.P. No. 20 of 1976 before the Labour Court, Madras under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner in this writ petition was the respondent in the said claim petition. Pending adjudication of the said claim petition, J. D. Chandran died and his mother one Subhadrai Ammal was brought on record as the legal representative of her deceased son, on her application. This was done in spite of the contest by the petitioner herein that such an application was not maintainable. Pending further orders in the main claim petition, the aforesaid Subhadrai Ammal also died and her daughter Rathikantha ammal, the first respondent herein, filed I.A. No. 112 of 1978 before the Labour Court, Madras seeking to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased Subhadrai Ammal and also of late J. D. Chandran to prosecute the claim petition. The petitioner herein contested the said application stating that th...
Tag this Judgment!Anama Gounder Vs. A.C. Ponnusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad81
1. The petitioner is one Anama Gounder, against whom the respondent had obtained a decree for money in the sum of Rs. 1618. The decree holder sought to levy execution against the judgment debtor by applying for his arrest and detention in civil prison. The judgment debtor resisted the execution proceedings on the score that he was a small farmer within the meaning of Act 31 of 1976, entitled to scaling down the debt.2. The learned District Munsif, found on the evidence that the judgment debtor could not be regarded as a small farmer. Having disposed of the judgment debtor's objection to execution based on Act No. 31 of 1976, the learned District Munsif then proceeded to give a disposal to the execution petition in the following manner-"The respondent does not plead that he has no means to pay the decree amount..........The petition is posted to 25-7-1978 for the payment of the entire amount by the respondent. If the respondent fails to pay the decree amount by then, arrest will be orde...
Tag this Judgment!Kullappan Vs. Meenakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad176
Ramanujam, J.1. As all these appeals rise out of the claim Petitions filed by various persons in respect of the same accident and of the same common order of the Tribunal, it is convenient to deal with them together.2. On 9-9-1976 at about 5-55 P. m. the Lorrv MSN 3785 belonging to the appellant and a taxi MSL 6872 belonging to one Padma Shannmugham collided near Pandiyarajapuram Sugar Mills on the Dindigul Madurai road. As a result of this collision all the 12 passengers in the taxi. including the driver. sustained serious injuries and seven of them died as a result of the injuries. Nine out of the 12 Passengers file d claim petitions. Seven claims related to the seven persons who died and two related to the injured persons. All the nine claim petitions had been filed on the basis that the accident was due exclusively to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver.3. The claim petitions were opposed by the owner of the lorry as well as the Insurance Company with which th...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahadevayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad151
1. This appeal has been filed by the insurer as against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, in 0. P. 284 of 1975. On 17-3-1975, one Basavanniah alone with some of his friends was making some purchases in the Evening Bazar. At that time, an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TMZ 6631, belonging to one Mrs. Chandra and insured with the second respondent, came at a high speed and knocked him down, He sustained head injuries and became unconscious. Immediately he was removed to the General Hospital. Later he succumbed to the injuries on 21-3-1975, On the ground that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was rash and negligent and the accident had occurred due to that rash and negligent driving, the widow and the children of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming compensation of Rs. 40,000.2. The claim was opposed by the owner of the auto-rickshaw, the first respondent and the insurance company, the second...
Tag this Judgment!Guruswami Chettiar Vs. Savithri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1981
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ88
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner obtained a lease of land from the first respondent Savithri Ammal and raised a superstructure of his own on the demised land. The property was situate within the limits of Kumbakonam Municipality to which the provisions of the City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921, were extended with effect from 14th December, 1955. The landlady Savithri Ammal filed a suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for ejecting the tenant, from the land. The suit summons was served on the tenant on 11th February, 1964. Within a month's time from the service of summons, on 10th March, 1964, the tenant filed O.P. No. 10 of 1964, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1922 seeking the aid of the Court to obtain from the landlady, by purchase the demised land on which he bad constructed the superstructure. The Sub-Court decreed the landlady's ejectment suit on 30th October, 1965, subject...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.M. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC315(Mad)
Gokulakrishnan, Offg. C.J. 1. The short question that comes up before us is whether there is manufacture as contemplated under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act warranting the levy of purchase tax. The Tribunal, after elaborately discussing the definition of the word 'manufacture' occurring in the section, came to the conclusion that the transformation of white ash into sacred ash by cleaning and adding perfume does not result in a new commercial produce and there is no manufacturing process involved therein. After such observation, the Tribunal has held that the commodity in question will not attract purchase tax. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers : 1980(6)ELT343(SC) the Supreme Court, dealing with sliced pineapple and referring to section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, which is analogous to section 7-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, has observed that where there is ...
Tag this Judgment!General Travels, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Chandrakala Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad62
Ramanujam, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by respondents 1 to 5 in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 79 of 1914, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore. On 9-5-1974 at about 2.50 p. m. the bus MDL 1591 belonging to the 7th respondent and hired by respondent-1 carrying tourists from Bangalore to Madras met with in accident at a place near Marappattu between Vaniambadi and Ambur road, in the course of which the bus went off the road and after going to a distance of 200 yards, hit a tree and thereafter a wall of a house. As a result of the said accident, one Sadashiva Shetty sustained multiple injuries on the head and died in the hospital the same day. On the ground that the accident was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver the widow and the children of, the deceased Sadashiva Shetty filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. three lakhs.2. The said claim was opposed. The first respondent in the said claim petition is a f...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thangamuthu Vs. A. Gowrishanker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1981
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ215
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a small cause revision. The plaintiff in this case filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500 from the defendant. The claim related to the refund of advance paid by the plaintiff to the defendant under a written agreement for the purchase of a house-site in a layout. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendant undertook to obtain the sanction of the concerned municipal authorities for the lay-out. The plaintiff pleaded that while he was always ready and willing to pay the balance of the price for the house-site, the defendant had failed and neglected even to obtain the sanction for the lay-out. The suit was accordingly laid for the refund of the advance since, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had committed breach of the agreement.2. The defendant resisted the suit. He raised in the forefront, an objection to the maintainability of the suit. He contended that the suit, as laid, was for specific performance of a contract and hence barred unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »