Chennai Court April 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Chandra (T.P.) Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ497Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The second respondent, Kemp & Co. Ltd. had its head office at Bombay and a branch at Madras. The petitioner was in the service of the second respondent and he held the post designated branch manager. It was claimed by the second respondent that the petitioner was in charge of the branch at Madras. The second respondent terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 28 May 1953 after giving him a month's salary in lieu of notice and also an additional payment ex gratia. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, under Section 41A(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947. Those proceedings have had a chequered career. In the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner the preliminary objection of the management that the appeal was not competent was overruled on 5 May 1954. The validity of that order was successfully challenged by the second respondent in W.P. No. 157 of 1955. I held t...
M.A. Noor Mohamed and Co. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad33; (1955)2MLJ374; [1956]7STC792(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question raised by this writ petition relates to the legality of the assessment made against the petitioners under the Madras General sales-tax Act.2. The petitioners, M.A. Noor Mahomed and Co., carry on tannery business at Chromepet near the City of Madras, They had not taken any license under the provisions of the Madras General Sales-tax Act and for the' assessment year 1952-53 they had a turnover of Rs. 6,77,376-4-4.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Saidapet, who has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the petitioners carry on their business called upon them by an order dated 28-2-1954 to pay a tax of Rs. 10,584, being computed on their sale turnover. Complaining that the said assessment was illegal and not warranted by the provisions of the Madras General Sales-tax Act/the petitioners have applied to this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this assessment and they have obtained a rule nisi.3. The question raised for our consid...
Ramaswami Iyer Vs. A. Subbiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad184
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Munsiff of Tiru-nelveli in I. A. No. 445 of 1953 in O. S. No. 458 of 1941.2. The suit itself was one for partition filed In 1941, but the issues were framed on the 6th April 1942. The suit being for partition among two brothers, the relevant order of the Civil Procedure Code and the rule applicable to the case would be Order XX Rule 18 and not Rule 12. Much time need not be spent on this question as to which exactly is the rule that applies to suits for partition.Some four years after the issues were framed, there was a compromise entered into between the parties and, in pursuance of the compromise, a preliminary decree was passed on the 19th March 1946. Though in the suit there were issues raised relating to the taking of accounts & the liability of the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of such accounts, still, in the preliminary decree that was passed on the 19th March 1946, there was ...
M.A. Noor Mohamed and Co. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by Its R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ374
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question raised by this writ petition relates to the legality of the assessment made against the petitioners under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioners, M.A. Noor Mahomed & Co., carry on tannery business at Chromepet near the City of Madras. They had not taken any license under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and for the assessment year 1952-53 they had a turnover of Rs. 6,77,376-4-4. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Saidapet, who has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the petitioners carry on their business called upon them by an order, dated 28th February, 1954, to pay a tax of Rs. 10,584-0-0 being computed on their sale turnover. Complaining that the said assessment was illegal and not warranted by the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the petitioners have applied to this Court for issue of writ of certiorari to quash this assessment and they have obtained a rule nisi.3. The question raised fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›