Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1902)ILR25Mad149
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of Mr. Justice Boddam in Civil Suit No. 159 of 1900, dated 16th January 1901, dismissing the suit with costs. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for taking an account of property alleged to have been jointly acquired by the plaintiff and the first defendant as undivided brothers, for ascertaining the respective shares of plaintiff and first defendant therein and for a decree awarding to him his share in such properties.2. The cause of action, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the plaintiff and the first defendant carried on jointly some contract business until the year 1894, when, disputes and differences having arisen between them, the first defendant and his wife, the second defendant, left the house in which they were till then living with the plaintiff, as members of an undivided family, and went and lived separate. The property acquired from the funds of the contract business both prior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 131Ind.Cas.481
Curgenven, J.1. The question of law which tnis appeal raises is whether, during the pendency of a suit for partition, the Official Assignee can obtain in proceedings under Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act a declaration that the debts of an in-solvent father are binding upon the sons to extent of their shares in the family proper-ty The father. Narasimha Iyer was adjudicated together with his partner on the 2nd December, 1919, A few days ear-lier, on the 20th November, a partition deed had been executed between himself and his sons which was held to be void as against the Official Assignee, and this de-cision was confirmed on appeal by this Court on the 1st August, 1922. Meanwhile in July, 1922, the sons filed a suit for parti-tion in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madura, against their father. On the 5th February, 1924, the Official Assignee made the application to the Insolvency Court out of which this appeal arises. It was a notice of motion praying for a declara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1954)ILLJ457Mad
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The Madura Mills Workers' Co-operative Stores, Ltd., is a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (Act VI of 1932) on 23 December 1939 and it started work on 9 January 1940. Though originally the membership was about 300, all of whom were members of the Madura Labour Union, which was a union registered under the Trade Unions Act of the workers of the Madura Mills, at present according to the affidavit, the society has a membership nearing 12,000. Under by-law No. 5 of the Madura Mills Workers' Co-operative Stores, Ltd., the Madura Labour Union, as a registered body, was admitted as a member of the society and according to by-law No. 19 the executive management of the affairs of the society was to vest in a board of directors of not more than five of whom one should be the nominee of the Madura Mills Company, Ltd., and another a nominee of the Madura Labour Union. By-law No. 20 provides for the election of the directors by the general body...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad671; (1952)1MLJ611
Chandra Reddi, J.1. This second appeal has come before us as it was referred to a Bench by one of us, having regard to the divergence of Judicial opinion on the main point involved in the appeal.2. Defendants 1 to 8 are the appellants in this second appeal. The facts, so far as is necessary to appreciate the question involved in the second appeal, may be briefly stated:3. The suit house originally belonged to Khasim Peeran. This was built by him on a portion of a plot of land shown as A B C P E F G in the plan attached to the plaint. In the family division amongst the brothers, the site, on which the suit house is built, was allotted to Khasim Peeran and, subsequently, he built thereon the suit house. In discharge of a dower debt, Khasim Peeran transferred this house to his wife, Basiri Bibi. Basiri Bibi, in her turn, sold this house to the plaintiff in or about the year 1941 for a consideration of Rs. 250. After the death of Khasim Peeran, a creditor of his filed a suit on the foot of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad455
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is an application for appointing public auctioneers as commissioners to sell the mortgaged property after due advertisement and wide publicity with a note in bold lines in sale notices that the property would be sold free from all claims of all parties to the suit and free from all encumbrances and that vacant possession would be given on payment of the full purchase price and that the sale will be subject to confirmation by the High Court.2. The facts are: The applicant is the Honorary Secretary of the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd., which is a reliable and well known Nidhi in the city of Madras doing useful work. Defendant 1 V.K. Govindarajulu Chetty for himself and on behalf of his three minor sons who are now the plaintiffs in the pauper suit C. S. 7 of 1953 as manager of a joint Hindu trading family executed in favour of defendant 2, the Muthialpet Benefit Fund Ltd., two simple mortgages' dated 1-4-1948 and 7-5-1949 for Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 4000/- respectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad467
Ramaswami, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in O. S. No. 165 of 1954.(2) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for (a) settling a scheme, and (b) removing the defendant from trusteeship, (c) appointing a new trustee as per the scheme to be settled, (d) directing the defendant to render accounts of the income from the trust properties since 1945, and to direct him to pay to the trust whatever is found due on account of past and present income and profits in the suit properties and (e) any other directions regarding the suit charities and other reliefs.(3) The suit was filed on the foot of the following allegations: The plaint A schedule properties were endowed by the late Narayanaswami Mudaliar, the adoptive father of the defendant, and the late Arunachalam Chettiar, the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and paternal uncle of the third plaintiff, from a portion of profits earned in their partnership business and se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad106
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned IV Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court in O. S. No. 901 of 1957, a suit filed for specific performance of an agreement to sell immoveable property. One Loganatha Mudaliar purchased the plaint-schedule item 1 in his name and the plaint schedule item 2 in the name of his wife, Rathanammal. Loganatha Mudaliar died in 1955 and Rathanammal died in 1947, toganatha Mudaliar executed the will Ex. B-1, dated 1-3-1954 under which he gave the plaint schedule item 1 (two acres and 85 cents) in Kodur village in Rajampet taluk in Cuddappah Dt. to his son, Parthasarthi Mudaliar, the first defendant in the suit, he gave item 2 of the plaint schedule (1 acre and 41 cents) land in Kodur village to his daughters who are not parties to this suit; he gave some other property to his daughter-in-law, Nagarathnammal, who had, at that time, lost her husband and who is the second defendant in the suit. It is alleged by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ80
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the District Munsif, Coimbatore passed in E.P.No. 35 of 1988 in R.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1985 dated 15.9.1989.2. The petitioner was a lessee of the premises which belonged to the respondent herein. The petitioner herein has been carrying on tailoring business under the name and style of 'Suresh Tailors'. The respondent-landlady filed R.C.O.P.No. 9 of 1985 under section 14 (1) (b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction. The petitioner herein did not file a counter in that petition before the Rent Controller. On 8.2.1985, a memo was filed before the Rent Controller which is to the following effect:.Memo filed by the respondent. The respondent agreed to vacate the premises within six months and prepared to deliver possession. Therefore it is prayed Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant six months time to vacate the premises and handover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)2MLJ124
ORDER1. In this case, an important question of law arises as to whether a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated and continued departmentally against a person who has been convicted by the Sessions Court on a charge of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, during the pendency of the appeal against the said judgment in this Court. There is no decision directly governing this aspect of the matter, while learned Counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. : (1988)IILLJ470SC .The Supreme Court, after referring to some earlier cases, observed thus:The view expressed in the three cases of this Court seem to support the position that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet, there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceedings awaiting disposal of the criminal case. In the latter class of cases it would be open to the delinquent-employee to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)2MLJ157
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No. 15 of 1991. That contempt application has got a sphere of factual data behind it. The 5th respondent, hereinafter referred to as the management, is the petitioner in W.P. No. 618 of 1990 with which alone we are concerned herein. That writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in I.D. No. 23 of 1984 in so far as it directed reinstatement of the workmen. Pending the writ petition, when stay was asked for by the management, the learned single Judge of this Court directed payment to the workmen full wages last drawn by them under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of the learned single Judge has been confirmed by a Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) had been a party. Since there was non-compliance with the orders with regard to payme...
Tag this Judgment!