Chennai Court September 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.
Mustafa Badsha and anr. Vs. Madras Motor Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad779
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. C. R. P. No, 428 of 1950 is filed by the plaintiffs against the order made against them in I. A. No. 409 of 1955 in O. S. No. 1190 of 1955, a suit filed by them against the defendants to recover damages for the death of their child as a result of a car accident. According to the plaintiffs, the car at the time of the accident belonged to the first defendant; but, according to the respondent insurance company, it belonged to the second defendant, by reason of a transfer in his favour.The third defendant to the suit was the driver of the car. The application I. A. No. 409 of 1955 was made by the insurance company to be brought on record as the defendant and they were brought on record, but with this restriction that they would be permitted only to watch the proceedings that is to say as a dummy defendant. I am not convinced about the propriety of that order, because the Civil Procedure Code does not create a class of defendants who could be called spectator o...
In Re: C.D. Venkataraman, District Magistrate (Judicial), Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad338
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 but is merely a matter to be taken into account In exercising its discretion to issue the writ or not. At that stage the Court would consider not the mere existence of the remedy but its reality, adequacy and effectiveness. Therefore the proper course for the office is to draw the attention of counsel to the existence of the alternative remedy and to the possibility of the writ being dismissed on that ground, so that the petitioner might not later be mulcted with costs. Secondly, the office will also bring this fact to the notice of the Court at the time of the admission so that the Court might be apprised of this circumstance before a rule nisi is issued. The numbering of the writ petition however need not be refused on this ground.2. In regard to the second objection as towhether the petitioner had obtained the permissionof the head of his department bef...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.P. Chandrasekharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC6(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Kozhikode, in a Sales Tax Act case. The respondent submitted 'A-1' return for the year 1951-52 for a turnover of Rs. 1,56,000. He was provisionally assessed on 10th December, 1951, by the then Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and a 'A-2' notice was served on him on 11th December, 1951. Summons were issued to the assessee-respondent herein to produce the accounts and appear in person apparently to prove the correctness of the return submitted by him. There is no doubt that the notice was served on him. But the respondent sent a reply, Exhibit P-4, wherein he stated that when he went out to a particular place for collecting out-standings due to him he fell ill there and was bedridden and therefore he could not appear in person with the accounts on the appointed day and prove the correctness of his accounts. He prayed therein that no action should be ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K.P. Chandrasekharan (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC615(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional First Class Magistrate in a Sales Tax Act case. The respondent in this case is the same as the respondent in Crl. R. C. No. 711 of 1955.1 This case relates to the assessment for three months in the year 1952-53. The respondent has not submitted any return declaring his turnover because according to him he had stopped the business as it ended in a loss. But in a statement by the respondent before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer he had stated that he started the business on 4th November, 1951, and carried on the trade for about 8 months, that thereafter due to heavy loss that business was stopped and that he had not done any business afterwards. He says that the shop was released on 2nd July, 1952. Very rightly therefore the authorities came to the conclusion that 8 months from 4th November, 1951, would take him to July, 1952, and that on his own statement the respondent released the shop on ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K.P. Chandrasekharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ256
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial) Kozhikode in a Sales-tax Act case. The respondent submitted A-1 return for the year 1951-52 for a turnover of Rs. 1,56,000. He was provisionally assessed on 10-12-1951 by the then Deputy Commercial tax Officer and a 'A 2' notice was served on him on 11-12-1951. Summons were issued to the assessee respondent herein to produce the accounts and appear in person apparently to prove the correctness of the return submitted by him.There is no doubt that the notice was served on him. But the respondent sent a reply, Ex. P. 4, wherein he stated that when he went out to a particular place for collecting outstanding due to him he fell ill there and was bedridden and therefore he could not appear in person with the accounts on the appointed day and prove the correctness of his accounts. He prayed therein that no action should be taken against him for not app...
R. Kumaraswami Aiyar Vs. the Commissioner, Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ255
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner was employed as an upper division clerk in the municipal office at Tiruvannamalai and he has moved this Court for the issue of a writ of prohibition to direct the Commissioner of the Municipality not to proceed with certain disciplinary proceedings initiated with a view to terminate his services in the municipality.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are shortly these : The petitioner, as mentioned earlier, is an upper division clerk in the Municipal office at Tiruvannamalai. While so, he was charged before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai of the offence of cheating under Section 420, I. P. O., in C. C. No. 94 of 1953. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate on 29-3-1954 but instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, taking into account the youth of the accused and the fact that he was a first offender the learned Magistrate directed him to be released on his entering into a bond in a...
R. Kumaraswami Aiyar Vs. Commissioner, Tiruvannamalai Municipality and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ562
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner was employed as an upper division clerk in the Municipal Office at Tiruvannamalai and he has moved this Court for the issue of a writ of prohibition to direct the Commissioner of the Municipality not to proceed with certain disciplinary proceedings initiated with a view to terminate his service in the Municipality.2. The facts giving rise to this petition are shortly these:The petitioner, as mentioned earlier, is an upper division clerk in the Municipa Office at Tiruvannamalai. While so, he was charged before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, of the offence of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 94 of 1955. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate on 29th March, 1954, but instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, taking into account the youth of the accused and the fact that he was a first offender the learned Magistrate directed him to be released on his entering into...
Modern Match Industries, Gudiyatam, by Partner K.B. Palani Mudaliar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad688
ORDERRajagopalan, J. 1. The disputes between the Modern Match Industries, Gudiyatam, and its employees were referred as industrial disputes under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the case was registered as I. D. No. 59 of 1934. 2. One of these disputes was whether the workers should he paid higher wages than they were actually getting from their employer. A similar dispute between Eswaran Match Works and its workers was also referred and that was registered by the Industrial Tribunal as I. D. No. 58 of 1954. 3. The factories in question were in Gudiyatam, where matches were manufactured. The workers employed in the box-filling department of the factories were paid on piecework basis at one anna six pies per gross of boxes containing forties and one anna nine pies per gross of boxes containing sixties each. Despite the claim of the managements, that these constituted the highest rate of wages paid in that industry either at Gudiyatam or elsewhere, the Tribunal direct...
In Re: A.M. Chinniah, Manager, 786 Sangu Soap Works Kattumavadi Road A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad755; 1957CriLJ1418; (1957)ILLJ280Mad
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are two connected revisionsarising from the convictions and sentences of thelearned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore in S. T. C.Nos. 36 and 37 of 1955.2. The facts of these cases have been fully set out in the judgment of the lower Court and need not be recapitulated because the short point for determination in these revision cases is whether the Sangu Soap Works, Kattumavadi Road, Arantangi, is a factory within the meaning of Act 63 of 1948.3. This Sangu Soap Works can be considered to be a factory only if under S, 2 (m) (ii) of the Factories Act twenty or more workers are working or were working on any day of the preceding 12 months and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on. The term ''manufacturing process' has been defined in Clause (k) of Section 2. Sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of this clause are new. They did not occur in the old Act of 1934. Sub-clause (i) has also been ma...
Rasipuram Union Motor Service Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad151; [1956]30ITR687(Mad)
The question referred is :"Whether the assessee company was liable to super-tax levied under the provisions of section 23A for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 and in the sums determined by the Income-tax Officer ?"The assessee is a private limited company falling within section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act. The books of account of the company disclosed a loss of Rs. 23,686 for the calendar year 1954, the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1955-56. The department did not accept the book results and estimated the profits of the company under the proviso to section 13. Such estimated income was Rs. 38,888. Similarly, for the assessment year 1956-57 the income of the company was estimated at Rs. 53,619. According to the department the balance of profit, after deduction of the tax, available for distribution as dividend was Rs. 22,742 and Rs. 29,481 for the two assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 respectively. The company did not declare any dividend for these two ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »