Chennai Court April 1981 Judgments
M.R.S. Sankara Mudaliar and ors. Vs. B.M. Haji Abubacker Maricar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad39
1. The respondents 2 to 4 in H.R.C. No. 3036 of 1976 before the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition, which arises out of an application filed by the respondent herein for an order of eviction against the petitioners and another. According to the case of the respondent, he is the owner of premises bearing Door No. 133, Moore Street, Madras-1, and that one S.M. Hussain alias Hallaj (the first respondent in H.R.C. No. 3036 of 1976) occupied the entire first floor portion thereof excepting a room as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 215, exclusive of electricity charges. The further case of the respondent was that Hussain alias Hallaj retained only one room for his own use and occupation and sub-let the other portions to the petitioners and the fifth respondent in the, application for eviction and that the sub-lessees are in, occupation of the respective portions payingrent to Hussain alias Hallaj. It was also the case of the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. J.K. Parlesha and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR767(Mad)
Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 1976. 1. This is an appeal by the Union of Indian represented by the ITO, Central I Circle, Madras, to enhance the sentence awarded to the accused in C. C. No. 3491/73, on the filed of th Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmors, Madras. the learned Magistrate found accused 1 to 3 guilty under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal code as well as under s. 193 of the India Penals Code. He also found that second accursed guilty of the three counts of charges under s. 277 of the I. T. Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The learned Magistrate, without convicting the third accursed under s. 277 of the Income-tax Act, nevertheless sentenced her to imprisonment till e rising of e court on three courts of charges framed under s. 277 of the I. T. Act. In respect f the offences punishable under s. 120B read with ss. 193 and 196 of the IPC, the first accused wa s sentenced to pay a fine...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gurumurthy, Authorised Representative of CertaIn Workmen, Etc., Etc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ360Mad
1. As all these writ appeals and the writ petitions raise a common question, they are dealt with together. However, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in all the cases as the facts are substantially the same and it is sufficient to refer to the facts in the first case, viz., Writ Appeal No. 44 of 1977.2. Messrs. Simpson & Co., Ltd., Madras filed an application on 19-5-1976 under S. 25M(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras seeking permission to continue the lay-off of 139 of 432 workmen employed in the establishment with effect from 5-3-1976, for the reason set out in Item 21 of the Annexure to the application. The reasons set out in the said Annexure were (1) non-availability of essential raw materials to run the operations in the Carriage department and the Light Engineering section, (2) acute power shortage, (3) no possibility of procuring orders due to non-availability of raw materials ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Gurumurthy, Authorised Representive of CertaIn Workers Vs. Simpson ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ394
G. Ramanujam, J.1. As all these writ appeals and the writ petitions raise a common question, they are dealt with together. However, it is unnecessary to set out the facts in all the cases as the facts are substantially the same and it is sufficient to refer to the facts in the first case, vis., W.A. No. 44 of 1977.2. Messrs. Simpson & Co., Ltd., Madras, filed an application on 19th May, 1976, under Section 25-M(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, seeking permission to continue the lay-off of 139 out of 432 workmen employed in the establishment with effect from 5th March, 1976, for the reasons set out in item 21 of the Annexure to the application. The reasons set out in the said Annexure were : (1) non-availability of essential raw materials to run the operations in the carriage department and the Light Engineering Section; (2) acute power shortage; (3) no possibility of procuring orders du...
Tag this Judgment!N.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad228
Ramanujam, J.1. Since all these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Court below in A. A. 479 to 481 of 1973 in O. S. 91 of 1941, they are dealt with together.2. The suit O. S. 91 of 1941 on the file of the court below was filed by the first respondent, who is common in all the three appeals, for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties and for rendition of accounts of the management of his elder brother Nachiappa, who was the first defendant therein. In that suit the court below passed a preliminary decree on 29-12-1943. declaring the plaintiffs right to half share in the suit properties and directing rendition of accounts with reference to the management of the joint family properties by Nachiappa, the first defendant. As against that preliminary decree, three appeals were filed before this court in A. S. Nos. 115, 199 and 499 of 1943 respectively by defendants 1. 2 and 3. During the pendency of these appeals the matter was referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Madras Vs. Amalgamations Repco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ193Mad
1. Both the above civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the orders of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in E.I.O.P. No. 11 of 1976, E.I.O.P. No. 11 of 1976, is a petition filed by Amalgamations Repco, Ltd., Madras-60, under S. 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for declaration that the payments made under the incentive scheme and the night shift allowance payable to the workmen of the factory are not wages within the meaning of S. 2(22) of the said Act. The case of the management is as follows. 2. The company pays night shift allowance at the rate of 70 paise per shift, as an inducement to the workers, so as to keep themselves awake and with a view reimburse them for the expenses that they might incur by way of tea, snacks, etc., during night hours. Apart from this, the company has introduced incentive bonus to the workers for higher production over and above the norms set out by the management. The incentive bonus is paid on the principle that the workmen ...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Alwar Ayyangar Vs. Gurusamy thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad354
1. This revision arises in execution of a decree for a permanent injunction. The decree was passed on a clear finding that the decree holder was in possession to the suit land and the judgment debtor was seeking, to interfere with that possession. In the execution petition, the decree holder complained that the judgment debtor was seeking to interfere with that possession. In the execution petition, the decree holder complained that the. judgment debtor had willfully disobeyed the Court's injunction and accordingly prayed for the judgment debtor's detention in civil prison as the appropriate mode of execution against him. The executing Court has now dismissed his execution petition.2. Before the executing Court , the judgment debtor had objected to execution being levied against him on the score that he was entitled to possession of the land. He stated that subsequent to the decree for injunction passed by Court - Decree Evidence' of its willful exist - Onus lies on proceeding for ex-j...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Am ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ126
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. Both the above civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the orders of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Madras in E.T.O.P. No. 11 of 1976. E.I.O.P. No. 11 of 1976 is a petition filed by Amalgamations Repco Ltd., Madras-60, under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for declaration that the payments made under the incentive scheme and the night shift allowance payable to the (sic) of the factory are not wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the said Act. The case of the management is as follows:2. The Company pays night shift allowance at the rate of 70 paise per shift, as an inducement to the workers, so as to keep themselves awake and with a view to reimburse them for the expenses that they might incur by way of tea, snacks, etc., during night hours. Apart from this, the company has introduced incentive bonus to the workers for higher production over and above the norms set out by the management. The incentive bonus is paid on...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamoorthy Koundar Vs. Paramasiva Koundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad310
Ramanujam, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the first defendant in 0. S. No. 284 of 1977 questioning the order of injunction granted by the court below pending the suit. The said suit 0. S. No. 284 of 1977 is one for specific performance, of an alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell his properties for a sum of Rs. 24750. The plaint proceeds on the basis that even on the date of agreement viz., 16-8-1977 the first defendant received a sum of Rs. 14000 as advance agreeing to execute the sale deed within 30 days after getting the balance of the sale consideration. The agreement also recited that the possession of the properties ~as been given by the first defendant to the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff's case is that in spite of the agreement of sale the first defendant has not executed the sale deed on receipt of the balance of the consideration and therefore he was constraine...
Tag this Judgment!Satyendra Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Mad)28; [1983]140ITR840(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in theses Income-tax references is one Satyendra Kumar, son of Appa Rao. Shyamalambal is the mother of Appa Rao and the paternal grandmother of the assessee. This lady had funds of her own. She gave these funds to Appa Rao with the intention that they should be used for the benefit of the entire family. With the funds thus entered into various other transactions. In course of time, Appa Rao acquired properties in his name as well as in the names of others, utilising the money derived from the business and from properties acquired therefrom. After some time, disputes arose in the family as to these properties and businesses. The disputes were referred to the arbitration of two members of the Madras bar named as joint arbitrators. The arbitrators gave their award on June 9, 1955. The award was filed in this court and a decree in terms of the award was passed by Balakrishna Iyer J., by his order dated December 19, 1956, in O.P.No. 202 of 1956. Under th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›