Chennai Court August 1960 Judgments
The Management of Madras Pinjarapole, by Its Hony. Secy., T. Bhagchand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad239; (1960)IILLJ686Mad; (1960)IILLJ686Mad
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Prohibition or Other appropriate writ, prohibiting the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras, from proceeding with the enquiry in I. D. No. 103 of 1958, on his file. By G. O. No. 3621, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 22nd September, 1958, the State Government referred for adjudication by the Labour Court, Madras, certain questions in a dispute between the Madras Pinjarapole and its workmen.The questions related to the fixation of scales of pay, dearness allowance etc, for the various categories of workmen and whether the termination of services of the five workers mentioned in the reference was justified, and to what relief they were entitled. A preliminary objection was taken before the Labour Court to its jurisdiction to entertain the reference on the ground that there had been no valid reference to it by the Government.The objection was that the Madras Pinjarapole was no...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subramania Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1960
Reported in: [1962]46ITR724(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - Subramania Chetty, who resided in Pondicherry and carried on business there was a 'non-resident' for purpose of assessment to income-tax in India. His divided brother, Vinayagam Chettiar, resided at Madras, where he had his own business, on the income from which he was assessed to tax. Though a non-resident, Subramaniam had business connections with the taxable territories. Subramaniam obtained licences from the Government of India to import machinery, mill stores, etc., into India. Such imports were made from abroad through Madras and other ports.In the year of account that ended on March 31, 1950, Vinayagam claimed he had purchased from Subramaniam machinery, etc., imported by the latter into Madras to the value of Rs. 2,37,195. The gross profits on the sales of these imports effected subsequently by Vinayagam were estimated at 19 per cent. of the purchase price and Vinayagam was assessed on that basis and by recourse to section 42(2) of the Income-tax Act. The gross...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Stremann, Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1960
Reported in: AIR1962Mad26; [1961]41ITR297(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. Kulandavelu Mudalier, the father of the assessee was an agent of Muller and Phips (India) Ltd., and he handled the sale of their pharmeutical preparations. He gave up that agency, and on July 1, 1937, the petitioner was appointed the company's agent.(2) Kulandavelu died on 27th July, 1938. The assessee, the only son of Kulandavelu, inherited from his father a house in Ayalur Muthiah Mudali St., a sum of Rs. 3,000 realised on insurance policies, and Rs. 600 refunded by the Income-tax Department. The case when into his banking account. On the death of Kulandavelu, the assessee was the sole male member of his family.(3) In the assessment year 1938-39 the assessee's claim was upheld, that his appointment as the agent of the company did not constitute any succession to any business of Kulandavelu and that the agency and the business that ensued constitued the separate requisition of the assessee independent of his father.(4) The agency proved lucrative, and the assessee a...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramachandran Vs. A. Alagiriswami, Govt. Pleader High Court, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad450
1. By a notification dated 22-6-1960 and bearing S. R. O. No. A. 4436 of 1960 issued in the Public Department, the Government of Madras appointed Mr. Alagiriswami, to be Government Pleader with effect from 1-7-1960 on his retirement from the Madras State Higher Judicial Service". In the present petition the validity of this appointment is questioned.2. Mr. Alagiriswami, the first respondent, was enrolled as an advocate of this Court on 16-3-1936. Some five and the three-quarter years later, that is to say, on 3-12-1941, he was appointed as District Munsif and served in that capacity in different places till 5-4-1947. In that year he was appointed as Private Secretary to the then Chief Minister of Madras, which position he held till 1950. Between 1950 and 1953 he underwent training as Legal Draftsman in New Delhi. On the termination of his training he was appointed as Secretary to the Trade Marks Committee and thereafter as Special Officer for the Revision of the Trade Marks Act.On his ...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Abdul Kasim and ors. Vs. P.M.N. Mohamed Dawood and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad244; (1961)2MLJ77
1. The administration of the Annural Muhammadeeya Madarsa Trust was governed by a Scheme sanctioned by the High Court by its decree dated 16-4-1956 in A.S. No. 235 of 1952. The Scheme provided for six trustees. The three petitioners and respondents 8, 9 and 10 were the trustees appointed under the scheme. The trust constituted a wakf now governed by the provisions of the Muslim Wakfs Act (Act XXIX of 1954).2. Respondents 1 to 7 sought and obtained the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 C. P. C. to file a suit to amend the scheme now in force for the administration of the trust. That sanction was accorded on 9-12-1959, after the Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954, to which I shall hereafter refer as the Act, came into force. Section 55 of the Act provided:-"1. A suit to obtain any of the reliefs mentioned in Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (Act XX of 1863) and in Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) relating to any wakf, may, notwithstanding anythin...
Tag this Judgment!Srila Sri Pichaia Sivachariar Vs. the Commissioner for Hindu Religious ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ510
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. The petitioner is the Madathipathi of Mela Madam, Tirunelveli, in respect of which Math the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, has initiated proceedings Under Section 65 of Madras Act XXII of 1959. The notice which initiated the proceedings contains a draft scheme which the Commissioner proposes to take into consideration as a scheme suitable for the Math in question.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that proceedings were already initiated even before Act XXII of 1959 came into force and that during the pendency of that proceeding Act XXII of 1959 came into force which necessitated the issuing of the notice under Section 65 of the new Act. This notice contains the draft scheme proposed to be framed for the Math in question. According to the learned Counsel this indicates the decision of the Commissioner to frame a scheme irrespective of any objections which the Madathipathi might put forward.3. I cannot say t...
Tag this Judgment!Valian Vs. Mari Samban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1960
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ598
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The non-hereditary post of the Talayari of Kalpalayam village in Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirapalli district, fell vacant when its permanent incumbent died on 19th December, 1955. The appointment to that post was governed by the provisions of the Proprietary Estates Village Service Act II of 1894.2. Section 8 of Act II of 1894, which I shall hereafter refer to as the Act, required the proprietor of the village or estate to inform the Revenue Divisional Officer of the vacancy within 30 days after its occurrence. The right to fill up the vacancy was given to the proprietor of the village by Section 9 of the Act, the relevant portion of which directed:The proprietor of the village shall within six weeks appoint a person to such vacant office and send notice of the appointment in writing to the Revenue Officer in charge of the division in which the village is situated,3. Section 10(1)(ii) set out the statutory disqualifications. The relevant portion of Section 11(1) provi...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subbarayalu Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices, Tanjore Division, N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad166; (1961)ILLJ465Mad; (1960)2MLJ585
1. The question that arises in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was appointed to act as the Branch Postmaster, Kilayur, Nagapattinam, with effect from 6-2-1949 by the Superetendient of Post Offices, East Tanjore Division. On 12-10-1955, the Inspector of Post Offices, Nagapattinam, issued an order that:"pending further enquiries into the complaint of alleged non-payment of a money order payable to Smt. Jaithoon Bivi, Kilayur, Sri V. Subbarayalu, BPM is temporarily kept out of employment with effect from the afternoon of the 12th October 1955." The petitioner claims that he repudiated the suggestion that he was responsible for the non-payment of the money order and demanded an enquiry. No enquiry was however held. He corresponded with the Inspector of Post Offices and was informed by that officer that the matter had been referred to the Superintendent of Post Offices, East Tanjore Division, and that...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Anupparpalayam Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1960
Reported in: [1961]42ITR576(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delvered bySRINIVASAN, J. - The facts leadng to the questin that has been referred to us are brifly these :The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of banking snce its incorporation in 1918. It appears to have taken over in some cases properties of its debtors in discharge of the loans advanced to them in the course of its banking business. Eventually, the assessee sold those properties. In the assessment year 1951-52, the department found that four items of properties had been disposed of by the bank, the assessee, on October 23, 1949, yielding a profit of Rs. 27,694-6-9. Rejecting the contention of the assessee that all these four items of properties had been acquired and held as investments and that it was compelled to sell the properties because of the amendment of the Banking Companies Act, the Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee purchased the properties in realisation of dues owing to it, with a view also to co...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Represented by the Public Prosecutor, Madras Vs. G. Kr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1960
Reported in: AIR1961Mad92; 1961CriLJ382
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an application by the Public Prosecutor. Madras, to revise the order of the Town Sub Magistrate, City I, Coimbatore. The respondent and some others have been arrested in connection with counterfeiting currency notes and they have been remanded to custody. The investigation is not yet complete and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. In the course of the investigation statements have been recorded under Section 164 Crl. P. C. The respondent applied for copies of these statements. The magistrate has directed copies of those statements to be granted to the respondent. Against this order directing the grant of copies to the respondent, the present revision has been filed by the Public Prosecutor. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that these copies are not to be granted at this stage, that is, before the filing of the charge-sheet. He had also contended that even after the filing of the charge-sheet, copies of those statements should not be g...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »