Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1974
Reported in : (1975)2MLJ122
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals, arising out of O.P. No. 4 of 1971 and O.P. No. 53 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot at Vellore, involve common questions of law.2. In C.M.A. No. 475 of 1971, the appellant, a former President of the Kizhchettipattu Panchayat Board, was surcharged by the Auditor, by his order dated 30th September, 1970 a sum of Rs. 649-71P. on the ground the appellant had not spent the entire sum of Rs. 3,089-15P. drawn by him from the Panchayat funds for road Work, but had spent only Rs. 2,439-44P. and consequently, the appellant had to make good the loss of Rs. 649-71P. caused to the Panchayat. In C.M.A. No. 476 of 1971, the appellant, who was the President of Ammoor Panchayat from 1958 to 1965, was surcharged by the Auditor a sum of Rs. 715-73P by his order dated 28th June, 1970 on the ground the appellant had not brought into account the usufructs of some tamarind trees belonging to the Panchayat which had been taken on l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-01-1974
Reported in : ILR1975Delhi284
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) The main question for consideration is whether even a temporary police officer in Delhi is governed exclusively and that too by each and everyone of the Punjab Police Rules framed under the Police Act, 1861 (hereafter called 'PPR' in short) as applied to Delhi or whether his services can be terminated under rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 (hereafter called 'CCS(TS) Rules' as being applicable to him along with only some but not all the Punjab Police Rules. The question arises as follows :- (2) Petitioner Ram Chander was first directly appointed as Head Constable in the Delhi Police Force on July 16, 1959 as a result of competitive examination. At the next competitive examination he secured a higher place and was appointed as a temporary Assistant Sub Inspector along with others on April 20, 1960 with effect from March 31, 1960. Their letter of appointment signed by the Superintendent of Police who is their appointing authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Mad30
ORDERPaul, J.1. A petition under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed by one Sarojini as guardian of a minor for the grant of succession certificate. It is stated in that petition that one Pachayappa Mudaliar who was ordinarily residing at Chinegleput died intestate at Chingleput on 18-12-1958 leaving behind the property mentioned in the petition and leaving behind as his heirs the petitioner who is the widow of his pre-deceased son, his grandson Mohana Prakasam and his second son Thillai Natarajao and even during the lifetime of the deceased 2 partition suit was filed by the petitioner and her minor son in C. S. No. 109 of 1954 on the file of this court against the late Pachayappa Mudaliar and his wife and Thillai Natarajan and by a decree dated 3-1-1957, this court allotted certain Items to the minor Mohanaprakasam and three life insurance policies which are the subject-matter of this petition, were directed to be assigned by the deceased Pachiappa Mudaliar in favo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-03-1974
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ215
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. A petition under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act has been filed by one Sarojini as guardian of a minor for the grant of succession certificate. It is stated in that petition that one Pachayappa Mudaliar who was ordinarily residing at Chingleput died intestate at Chingleput on 18th December, 1958 leaving behind the property mentioned in the petition and leaving behind as his heirs the petitioner who is the widow of his pre-deceased son, his grandson Mohanaprakasam and his second son Thillai Natarajan and that even during the lifetime of the deceased a partition suit was filed by the petitioner and her minor son in C.S. No. 109 of 1954 on the file of this Court against the late Pachayappa Mudaliar and his wife and Thillai Natarajan and in and by a decree, dated 3rd January, 1957 this Court allotted certain items to the minor Mohanaprakasam and three life insurance policies which are the subject-matter of this petition were directed to be assigned by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Raj212
Gupta, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a motor accident, which took place on May 3, 1966, Shri Rajbahadur Singh reached Kota Junction on the fateful morning by train and took a cycle rickshaw from the railway station to go to Bundi bus stand at Kota in order to catch the bus for Bundi. He had been selected at a competitive examination for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, occupying the fifth position ,and after undergoing the necessary training at Alwar, he was posted as Munsif Magistrate, Bundi. It was his first assignment in the State service and he was to join his duties as a Munsif Magistrate on May 3, 1966, at Bundi. But destiny willed otherwise and while the rikshaw in which Shri Rajbahadur Singh was sitting, was proceeding from Brij Talkies crossing on the slope leading towards the Bundi bus stand, a passenger bus, bearing registration No. RJR 915 came from behind. The bus collided in the first instance with Jeep No. DLJ 1329, which was at that time parked towards the left si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-10-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN36
..... section 95(2)(b)(i) of the motor vehicles act have the effect of limiting the liability of the insurer in respect of a policy of insurance to rs. 20,010/- and there is no basis for the submission of the leraned counsel for the corporation that the aforesaid limited liability should be shared by by the corporation along with the indian mercantile insurance co. ltd. the vehicle in question was insured with the life insurance corporation of india under a policy of insurance and the liability of the corporation ..... insurance policy with the indian mercantile insurance company. ltd. was issued on 3rd may, 1956 but the period of insurance was inadvertently mentioned therein as commencing from 2nd may, 1986 and further the fact that the vehicle in question was already insured with the life insurance corporation, was not disclosed to the inspector of the aforesaid company and the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance ..... singh was sitting, was being driven rashly and negligently, as it was proceeding with great speed and it was on account of the sudden application of brakes by the rikshaw puller that the rikshaw received a jolt and overturned and shri rajbahadur singh was thrown out resulting in his ..... either that the judge acted on some wrong principle of law, or that the amount awarded was so extremely high or to very small as to make it, in the judgment of this court, an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.43. on this subject lord wright .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-14-1974
Reported in : AIR1974Cal193
ORDERSalil K. Roy Chowdhury, J.1. This is an application under Section 37(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for extension of the period to refer the matter to arbitration for a fortnight from the date of the order to be parsed.2. The facts briefly are as follows:The petitioners are a common carrier of goods. In course of their business it used to take out Transit Policies of insurance renewable from year to year described as Freight Policies in consideration of the amount of premium mentioned in the Policies of Insurance. It is alleged by the petitioner that between 1959 to 1972 the petitioner has taken out various such Insurance Policies with the respondent and paid the premium thereof and received compensation from time to time thereunder and particulars of the same are set out in paragraph 3 of the petition. It is alleged that in or about January, 1969 the petitioner took out a Freight Policy bearing No. CL/RFP/257 from the respondent. Under the said Policy and in consideration of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1974
Reported in : 1974WLN176
B.P. Beri, C.J.1. The six petitioners before us are Railway servants who were removed/dismissed from service because each one of them was convicted for an offence by a criminal court. They complain that notwithstanding the fact that they were given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter called 'the Probation Act') they have been removed or dismissed. They have challenged their order of removal/dismissal on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation Act or at any rate inconsistent with the objects of that statute & that it is violative of the principles of natural justice as they were never heard before removal or dismissal. The learned Single Judge, before whom these petitions were presented, found it necessary to refer these cases to a Division Bench because Tyagi, J. in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 481, 482 516, 517 and 600 of 1966 by his judgment dated December 19, 1969, had held that even in a case covet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jan-21-1974
Reported in : 40(1974)CLT257; (1974)IILLJ115Ori
R.N. Misra, J.1. The Koraput Division of M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has its establishment at Sunabeda within the district of Koraput under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The company is a defence oriented project and its factory at Sunabeda is engaged in the manufacture of aero-engines for the MIG fighter planes, The Regional Director of Employees' State Insurance Corporation (opposite party No. 1) an authority operating under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 34 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) required the company to pay the special contribution in terms of Section 73A of the Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 18,919 for the quarter ending 31-3-1972. Prior to the said period, the petitioner. company had already contributed to the tune of Rs. 1,63,898 without knowing its liability. Armed with a decision of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its support, the company resisted the demand, but when coercive steps were threatened, it has com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-21-1974
Reported in : AIR1974SC759; [1974(28)FLR223]; (1974)ILLJ304SC; (1974)4SCC365; [1974]3SCR142
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The appellant and his brother, Srinivasamurthy are partners of a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and exporting of polished granite memorial stones in the name and style of Messrs Narayauaswami & Sons. The firm is admittedly a factory both under the Factories Act as well as under the Employees' State Insurance Act (briefly the Act). The appellant claims to directly employ about 35 persons in his factory and has been paying contribution under the Act on their account. It is stated that adjacent to his own factory there is another factory situated on the appellant's land leased out by him to two persons, Chidambarchari and Shan-karsubbachari (hereinafter referred to as the contractors). The contractors employ about 50 workers in their factory for purposes of cutting and dressing the granite stones. The lorry drivers bring granite from the surrounding areas and unload them outside the factory. The contractors get these to their portion of the leased land f...
Tag this Judgment!