Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-02-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Mad112; [1971]41CompCas992(Mad)
ORDER1. The respondent who is the same in both the above revisions filed a suit O. S. No. 334 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupattur, against the petitioner herein (the Life Insurance Corporation of India) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 617-46 being the commission due to him in respect of a policy for Rs. 20,000/- in the name of one Dr. T. K. Ganesan which he had canvassed. His case was that he applied for a licence on 16-1-1963 to act as an agent of the petitioner for procuring life insurance business, that on the assurance given by the Development Officer, Tirupattur, that he would be given commission for the business procured by him from the date of the application for licence he canvassed and obtained a proposal from the said Dr. T. K. Ganesan for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which proposal was ultimately accepted by the petitioner, and a policy No. 112511025 had been issued to him but that contrary to the earlier assurance given by the Development Officer, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-29-1971
Reported in : AIR1973Mad122
ORDER1. The petitioner was last serving as Inspector in the Industrial Finance Corporation of India, he having joined the service of the Corporation in 1950 as a Clerk. On June 24, 1965, an order of suspension was served on him and he was so suspended on the alleged ground that he committed acts of criminal misconduct by claiming the cost of the ticket for travel after inspection of Sree Rajendra Mills Limited. Salem in September, 1964, even though the company had paid the same. Thereafter, on December 26, 1966, he was served with a memorandum of charges and as many as eight charges were leveled against him and he was called upon to explain. According to the Respondents, the petitioner violated Regulation 20 (i) of the Staff Regulations of the Industrial Finance Corporation and other rules governing the services, Sri M. N. Khushu was constituted as the Enquiry Officer. He enquired into the charges and, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and after examining several witn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-19-1971
Reported in : AIR1972Mad148
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Second defendant, the Highways Department of South Arcot, represented by the District Collector of South Arcot, Cuddalore, is the appellant. The first defendant is the proprietor of a service bus bearing No. MDF 2015 and known as K. T. R. Bus service. The third defendant is the New India Asiatic Insurance Co., with whom the said bus had been insured. The plaintiffs had filed the suit against these defendants claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000. on account of the death of their son Santhanagopalan in the accident that took place at or 5-30 a. m. on 14-11-1960, at 14/2 milestone in the Vridhachalam-Cuddalore road due to the culvert giving way and the bus plunging into the channel. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Cuddalore held that there was no negligence on the part of the first defendant or his driver and that, therefore, they were not liable for damages and in that view dismissed the suit as against the first and third defendants. But so far as the second defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1971
Reported in : [1971]41CompCas890(Mad)
Raghavan J. 1. These three writ petitions are filed by the three chit fund companies for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Reserve Bank of India (1st respondent) from enforcing the provisions of the Non-Banking--Financial Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1966, framed under Sections 45J to 45L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The petitioners are companies carrying on business as foreman of chits. The allegations in each of the writ petitions are of the same pattern and we shall take up the allegations in W.P. No. 1126 of 1967. The scheme of working of chits as set out by the petitioners in their affidavits is as follows:A number of persons called subscribers join together undertaking to subscribe a certain sum of money at stated intervals for a certain period. The aggregate of the sums payable by all the subscribers in one instalment is called the capital of the chit. The prize amount is ascertained by auctioning the fund among the subscribers or by draw. After ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-29-1971
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ72
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. These three writ petitions are filed by three Chit Fund Companies for the issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the Reserve Bank of India (1st respondent) from enforcing the provisions of the Non-Banking Financial Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 1966, framed under Sections 45-J to 45-L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The petitioners are companies carrying on business as foreman of chits. The allegations in each of the writ petitions are of the same pattern and we shall take up the allegations in W.P. No. 1126 of 1967. The scheme of working of chits as set out by the petitioners in their affidavits is as follows:2. A number of persons called subscribers join together undertaking to subscribe a certain sum of money at stated intervals for a certain period. The aggregate of the sums payable by all the subscribers in one instalment is called the capital of the chit. The prize amount is ascertained by auctioning the fund among the subscribers or by draw. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-23-1971
Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, questioning the legality of the Cement Control (Amendment) Order of 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Order) which came into force on the 16th of April, 1969, introducing certain changes in the Cement Control Order of 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Order.2. The writ petitioners asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus and other appropriate directions. Ismail, J., accepted the contentions of the petitioners on all the main points and allowed the writ petitions issuing certain directions. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2243 of 1969; Madras Cement Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2244 of 1969 and the India Cements Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P. No. 2245 of 1969.3. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, New Delhi, and (2) The Cement Controller, New Delhi, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!