Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1944Mad378
1. The parties to this appeal are members of a Malabar tarwad. The appellants, who are the junior members, sued the respondent, who is the senior member, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that the properties in his possession belong to the tarwad and that he is merely in charge of them as the karnavan of the family. The properties are extensive and produce a large annual income. The respondent pleaded that they, belong to stanoms of which he is the stani and therefore the appellants were not entitled to the declaration asked for, although he admitted that they were entitled to be maintained out of the properties in his possession. The Subordinate Judge found for the respondent, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal is from this decision. The relationship between the parties is shown by the following geneological tree: PARVATHI NETHIYAR (died 1904) Madras 37 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad335; (1963)IILLJ304Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner entered service in 1941 as a cashier in the former Imperial Bank of India. The undertaking of the Bank was in 1955 transferred to the State Bank of India, as it was constituted by the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 43 of this Act empowers the State Bank to appoint its officers, advisers and employees and determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service. The petitioner was taken over into the service of the State Bank and was in 1958 appointed as head cashier under an agreement for service entered into on 12-8-1958 with it. Clause 1 of the agreement provided that the petitioner'shall be and continue to be the head cashier of Virudhunagar branch of the bank from 27-7-1958 at a monthly salary of Rs. 182 only rising, subject to approved service, by such increments as may be granted by the bank at its absolute discretion, such service being determinable on either side by two calendar months' notice to that eff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ300
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. These writ proceedings involve, essentially, the validity of a scheme said to have been framed and promulgated by the first respondent, namely, the Madras State transport undertaking, here represented by its Director, Mr. T.V. Venkataraman, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Chapter IV-A). The writs seek to restrain both the first respondent and the State of Madras (second respondent), from proceeding further with this promulgated scheme, under the relevant sections of the law, on the grounds exhibited in the writ petitions. As is well known, and I do not think that it is necessary, for this purpose, to proceed into the history of the prerogative writ of prohibition in the United Kingdom, a writ of prohibition issues ex debito justitiae, where absence of jurisdiction can be demonstrated ; it is not the power to nationalise the road transport service which is in issue, nor the scheme of the relevant sections ; what is claimed is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ212
ORDER.In pursuance of the proviso to Clause (i) of Article 213 of the Constitution, the President approves the promulgation, by the Governor of Tamil Nadu of the Tamil Nadu Stage Carriages and Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1972.By order and in the name of the President.(Sd.) B. Shukla.'(Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.)The above is the first stage for the promulgation of the Ordinance . It may be seen that the President's assent under the Constitution is required in the following cases : (1) Article 31 (3) when a law referred to in Article 31 (2) has been reserved for consideration of the President; (2) Article 31-A first proviso, where a law falling under Article 31 -A relating to acquisition of estates is made by the Legislature of a State; (3) Under Article 254 (2) when there is an inconsistency between the laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of a State. The instructions under the proviso to Article 213 takes the place of the previous s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1975Mad19
1. The issue that has been referred to this Full Bench can be very simply stated: It is, whether an order granting leave to sue in forma pauperis by a single Judge of the High Court, is a judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent? Even in this restricted form, the issue involves a conflict of the case law in this Court. In M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer v. Rarichan, ILR 59 Mad 656 = (AIR 1936 Mad 387), a Division Bench of Beasley C. J. and Stodart J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court excusing the delay in the filing of a pauper appeal and admitting the appeal, is not a 'judgment' which can be the subject of an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In P. baba Sah v. Purushottama Sah 47 Mad LJ 932 = (AIR 1925 Mad 167), Spencer C. J. and Srinivasa Aiyangar J. held that an order of a single Judge of the High Court granting permission to the plaintiff to sue in forma paperis amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15, Letters Patent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1975)1MLJ407
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. Though these writ petitions differ with regard to the facts, they are being disposed of together, by a common order, in view of one common point argued in all these writ petitions. In all these writ petitions, against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, pasted under the provisions of Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', appeals were preferred to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 69 (1) of the Act and the Commissioner by the impugned orders in the writ petitions remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Deputy Commissioner. The orders of the Commissioner are challenged in these writ petitions and the common point raised in there petitions is that the Commissioner has not power to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.2. For the purpose of considering this poin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1977)2MLJ335
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 247 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, are the appellants herein. They filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,287-15 from the respondent-defendant viz., the Southern Railway, towards the damages alleged to have been suffered by them due to the loss of cotton caused on account of the alleged negligence and default of duty on the part of the servants of the defendant railway. It was alleged that the first plaintiff despatched 135 bales of full pressed cotton from Washim Railway Station in Madhya Pradesh State to Pulankinar Railway Station in Madras State (now Tamil Nadu) under Railway Receipts Nos. 725059 and 725058 dated 3rd February, 1964 at railway risk, in pursuance of the order placed by the second plaintiff with the first plaintiff. The third plaintiff viz. the Pioneer Fire and General Insurance Co. had covered the said consignments by issuing a policy in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1977CriLJ1700
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The complainant in P. R. C. No. 1 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi, has preferred this revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate discharging respondents 1 to 6 (accused 1 to 6) holding that offences alleged against accused 1 to 6 are not triable exclusively by the Court of Session and that it did not warrant their committal Under Section 209(a) Crl. P. C. and that no prima facie case had been made out against accused L to 6 so as to convert the preliminary register case as a calendar case and proceed against the accused.2. The crux of the indictment of the complainant is as follows: The petitioner complainant preferred a private complaint against these respondents for offences Under Sections 147, 460, 307, 342 and 323 I. P. C. alleging that on 17-11-1973, at about 10-30 p. m. while the complainant and one Sivaraj were sleeping in the room in the Lorry Booking office at Nagapattinam, about 50 person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1978)1MLJ287
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. In this appeal by a writ petitioner who unsuccessfully sought to quash the orders passed by the first and second respondents, namely, the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the Collector of Customs, Madras, an interesting and somewhat difficult question of interpretation of the provisions of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (here in after called 'the Order') arises. To be more, specific, the question is whether on the facts of the case, it is Clause 3(3) of the Order that would apply or Clause 10-C thereof.2. The appellant before us is a letter-of-authority holder for a firm to whom licence had been issued, admittedly validly, for the import of photographic films. He opened an irrevocable letter of credit on 11th January, 1974 in favour of the foreign exporter and the goods were despatched on 24th July, 1974 and they arrived at the Port of Madras and a Bill Entry was filed on 18th September, 1974. The description of the goods given in the licence stated:Phot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ343Mad
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These 60 writ petitions have been filed against a common order dated 23.6.1975 made by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in C.P. Nos. 253 of 1974, etc., The petitioner is the management of Pudukottah Textiles Ltd., Namanasamudram, Pudukottah District. 61 claim petitions were filed before the first respondent under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act., (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), claiming payment of wages for the period 1.4.1970 to 12.11.1971, nearly seventeen months, during which period the Mill was kept closed. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, it is claimed by the workmen that till 1970, the mill was under the management of one L. Narayanan Chettiar, who was designated as Director, and who had taken over the management in or about 1959. Due to continued financial difficulties, the management which was in charge of its affairs in 1970, issued notice dated 28.3.70 under Ext. M10, informing its workers that the ...
Tag this Judgment!