Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: president s pension act 1951 Court: chennai Page 8 of about 1,579 results (1.090 seconds)

A. Muniswami Vs. T. Viswanatha Nair

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1957Mad773

..... years ''wages' to his head gardener. the question is what the testator meant by the word 'wages'. i can find no assistance from the truck acts or the workman's compensation. acts, nor is there any authority, curiously enough, which covers the question. suppose a friend had asked the testator what he paid his head gardener. ..... his employment; or (v) any gratuity payable on discharge.'the definition of 'wages' given in the madras shops and establishments act, is the same as in the payment of wages act.the workmen's compensation act defines 'wages' as follows;'wages includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a ..... traveling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or .....

R. Sukumaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt. Re ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2002)2MLJ380

..... expected to follow the law laid down by the high court. such a direction has to be issued since inspite of repeated pronouncements of this court, the registrars have acted with scant respect, such a conduct is highly reprehensible.24. this is a fit case where costs should be awarded against the concerned registrars, besides contempt proceedings. however ..... the two earlier division bench judgment in the state of tamil nadu & others vs. t. thulasi lakshmi & another in w.a. nos. 1467 and 1468 of 1998 and s.p.padmavathi vs. state of tamil nadu, etc., reported in 1997 (2) lw 579, as well as the judgment of the division bench in the district collector, erode district ..... housing board on the instrument executed by the housing board and presented for registration.14. the point raised herein is covered by the pronouncement of the earlier division bench in s.p.padmavathi vs. state of tamil nadu, etc., reported in 1997 (2) lw 579 as well as two other reported pronouncements. 15. the points raised in .....

S. Mukanchand Bothra Vs. Vairamuthu Ramaswamy

Court : Chennai

..... ors. (2005 (9) scc 194), the supreme court, following its earlier decisions in state of kerala - vs - m.s.mani (2001 (8) scc 82) and bal thackrey's case (supra), held as under :- 2. under the contempt of courts act, the petition seeking the punishment for contempt can be invoked by a party only with the prior written consent of the ..... advocate general of the state under section 15 of the said act. this position in law is now well settled by judgments of this court in the cases of state of kerala - vs - m.s. mani and bal thackrey - vs - harish pimpalkhute wherein it is held that prior written sanction of ..... contempt, much less criminal contempt within the meaning of sec. 2 (c) of the contempt of courts act, 1971. he has filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining that his speech at the centenary celebrations of late justice p.s.kailasam cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as scandalizing or tending to scandalize or lowers or tends to .....

Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim (Died) and ors. Vs. Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1972Mad86

..... kaka mohammed ghouse sahib and co." madras represented by its sole proprietor. kaka mohammed ghouse sahib was contrary to the provisions contained in section 69 of the indian partnership act. the first defendant knowing fully well that he was only a partner of ghouse and co., had filed the suit as its sole proprietor, thus it may be ..... conceded that the first defendant had suppressed a material fact that the plaintiff in c.s. 173 of 1950 was an unregistered partnership firm, and obtained a decree against the defendants therein. the question arises whether this will amount to fraud, which will ..... an agreement, which had already come to between the first and second defendants, that the first defendant was fully authorised, empowered and entitled to file the suit c.s. no. 173 of 1950 and that the plaintiff was always aware of all the circumstances. the first defendant denied that the second defendant instigated him to file the .....

Sri Balaji Traders, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, Sri Gadagottu Raghun ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2005(1)CTC267; (2005)2MLJ26

..... by its managing partner. because of the stand taken by the contesting defendant, not questioning the maintainability of the suit, on the grounds contemplated under section 69 of the act, no finding has been given by the learned single judge.8. order 8, c.p.c. gives direction to defendant, how a statement should be filed, how ..... based upon, was shattered by the conduct of the plaintiff and that the suit filed by the plaintiff firm, without complying section 69(2) of the indian partnership act (hereinafter called 'the act') is not maintainable. on the above grounds, elaborating the same, taking us to the evidence, the pleadings as well as to the judicial precedents, it was ..... 30, rule 2, c.p.c., would not cure the defect, which had been already committed.14. it is observed in goverdhandoss's case, cited supra, considering the scope of section 69(2) of the act as follows:'a stringent provision of this nature has, first of all, to be strictly construed. it is, moreover, immaterial in our opinion .....

V.Baskaran Vs. Manjula

Court : Chennai

..... purpose was to secure the loan transaction. it is conceded by learned counsel for the appellants that the defendant is barred from raising such a plea by s.92 of the indian evidence act.6. hence the only question to be considered is whether the relief of specific performance should not be granted to the plaintiff. the normal rule is that ..... witness. his version is quite antithetical to the preponderance of probabilities and the illustration (e) to section 114 of the indian evidence act. (x)a public official is presumed to be the one who acted genuinely. d.w.3's evidence would go contra to his written commitments in ex.b5-the will. over and above that, d.w.5-the scribe ..... and another vs. p.s.rama rao pisey and others) (xix) (2008) 8 mlj 64.(thayammal vs. ponnusamy and another) 32.among the aforesaid decisions, the decision of this court reported in 2001(3)ctc 28.[corra vedachalam chetty and another vs. g.jankiraman] is on the point that the court while analysing the will is acting as a court of .....

Thiraichermadanthai Vs. Inspector General of Registration

Court : Chennai

..... . the joint sub registrar no.ii, office of the sub registrar, ramanathapuram .respondents prayer: civil miscellaneous appeal filed under section 47-a (10) of the indian stamp act 1899, against the order passed by the chief revenue controlling authority / inspector general of registration, made in pa.mu.no.15210/n.4/2007, dated 12.11.2008, ..... section 47-a before completing the registration, there cannot be a subsequent reference, much less after two years from the date of completion of registration. this court s.vimala, j., sr.hastens to add that a reference should be made immediately after registration or so sooner the registration is completed and at any rate within three ..... the reference is valid?. - these issues arise for consideration in this appeal. 2. the appellant purchased an extent of 2970 sq. ft., of land, comprised in s.f.no.280/1 in surankottai group village, ramanathapuram district, for a total sale consideration of rs.20,000/-, which was registered in document no.1030/2000 on 10 .....

Desayi Alias Allam Raju Nanjunadhiah Vs. Desayi Alias Allam Raju Venka ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1914)27MLJ618

..... 's ancestors was of the land itself. there has been no suggestion that the original grantees had any kudivaram right in ..... l.r. (1902) m 339 applies to this case. we hold that the properties are not 1st. defendant's self acquisition. the more important question relates to the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suit without a certificate under the pensions act. the finding of the courts below, we take to be, that the grant to thimrna raju ..... the soil prior to the grant to them. these considerations have to be borne in mind in deciding whether the pensions act applies to this case. section 4 interdicts the .....

New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. N. Ganapathy

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1982Mad380; [1983]54CompCas619(Mad); (1982)1MLJ305

..... bench of this court, towhich one of us, viz., ramanujam j. was a party, discountenanced the proposition that a mere intimation would suffice the provisions of s. 103-a (1) of the act, so as to invoke the deeming transfer of the policy as contemplated in the provision. such being the proposition of law as recognised by judicial precedents of this ..... was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, he has to apply in the prescribed form to the insurer for transfer as contemplated under s. 103-a (1) of the act. it could not be stated that the mere intimation of the transfer will satisfy the requirements of the said provision, so that if there is a ..... to transfer of the certificate of insurance and the policy described in the certificate in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred. s. 103-a (1) of the act reads as follows-"103-a (1). where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this .....

Avudainayagam Pillai Vs. Pitchiah Chettiar Alias Pitchiah Pillai and o ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1950Mad358

..... with the two questions raised and pressed before me. it is now settled law that proper notice under section 112, madras estates land act, is a condition precedent for creating jurisdiction in the collector to sell a ryot's holding under chap. vi. where there has been no such notice or where such notice is not served in the manner contemplated ..... 1939 the property purchased was assigned to defendant 1 in o. s. no. 206 of 1914 who is the appellant in s. a. no. 981 of 1946. the holding covers two acres now identified as s. no. 220/a.1. again in 1934, the landholder initiated proceedings under section 112 of the act for alleged arrear of rent for fasli 1342. the notice ..... ' holdings under chap. vi, madras estates land act of 1908. s. a. no 915 of 1946 is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the subordinate judge of tinnevelly in a. s. no. 112 of 1945 confirming the judgment and decree of the district munsif's court, tenkasi in o. s. no. 205 of 1944. s. a. no. 981 of 1945 is filed .....