Chennai Court November 1962 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.
K.M. Muhammed Sultan Rowther and anr. Vs. K.S.M. Muhamed Nurdin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ300
Venkatadri, J.1. The only point that arises for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether a statement in the reply notice Exhibit A-3, dated 10th February, 1955,. sent by the defendants to the plaintiff will amount to an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act of the suit debt covered by a promissory note dated 25th January, 1951 executed by the defendants in favour of the father of the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, that is, the son of the original promisee, as Receiver to recover the money due under the suit promissory note. Before the plaintiff took action on this promissory note as Receiver, on 20th January, 1955 he called upon the defendants under Exhibit A-2 to pay the amount due and payable under the promissory note, and the defendants replied on 10th February, 1955 by Exhibit A-3 stating that the amount due on the promissory note was discharged by executing a fresh promissory note on 20th January, 1954 in favour of th...
V.K. Baraskar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC615(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The vocation of the appellant is to draw pictures for remuneration and hand them over to business firms or printers who have them printed in hundreds and thousands of copies for sale or presentation. The appellant incurs the cost of paper and colours for the drawings. In the financial year 1956-57. he received Rs. 14,916-12 for the drawings. The materials used for the drawings cost him only Rs. 253-43. All the materials were not, however, used up in the drawings for the year and a large surplus was left with him at the end of the year. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed him to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 14,916-12. On appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessment was set aside. He held that the appellant was not 'a dealer' and that his transactions were not sales within the meaning of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Board of Revenue, acting in exercise of its revisional power, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissi...
Madura Mills Company Limited Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: [1964]15STC90(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The Madura Mills Company Limited is the peti tioner. For the assessment year 1952-53 the petitioner (assessee) was assessed on a turnover which included sales in a canteen. The rest of the assessee's turnover covered its dealings in cotton yarn and staple fibre yarn. In so far as the assessment of the turnover relating to sales at the canteen was concerned, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer. The appellate authority did not however dispose of the appeal but kept it pending to await the decision of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley's case wherein it was finally laid down that the turnover of sales in a canteen primarily run for the benefit of the workers in a factory did not represent taxable turnover in the course of business liable to sales tax. While the appeal was still pending, the Commercial Tax Officer in the exercise of his powers of revision under Section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, issued a notice and revised the o...
Gannon Dunkerley and Company (Madras) Private Limited Vs. the Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1962
Reported in: [1964]15STC40(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessees are building contractors. The turnover in dispute in the present revision petition is a sum of Rs. 29,274-55 nP. being the sales value of materials such as broken bricks, jelly and cement left over after the completion of building con tracts executed by the assessees. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 38,724 which represented the sales of the above materials as well as some other assets such as lorries, tractors etc., which had become worn out or unusable. The assessment of this turnover was taken in the appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom the assessees claimed that they are not dealers engaged in the buying and the selling of such articles, that these sales are only incidental to the carrying on of the contract work and that therefore the relevant turnover was not liable to sales tax. The appellate authority accepted the contention in so far as the sale of plant and machinery was concerned and deleted a sum of...
Young Men's Indian Association (Regd.) Vs. Jt. Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad63; [1963]14STC1030(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. In the first of the petitions the propriety of levy of sales-tax on the sales by the Cosmopolitan Club of tiffins to its members arises. In Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Triplicane v. Cosmopolitan Club : AIR1954Mad1144 , a Division Bench of this Court expressed the view that inasmuch as such sales were not in the course of business they were not taxable. The other aspect as to whether the Club being an incorporated body, the transactions could not be regarded as sales by the incorporated body to its members as contrasted with similar transactions between a non-incorporated proprietary or other types of clubs to their members was not specifically decided but left open. In view of this decision an Explanation to the definition of Dealer and another explanation to the definition of sale have since been incorporated. Under the Explanation the sales tailing with in its purview need not be in the course of business. The Explanation to the definition of dealer deems certai...
S. Rajammal Vs. Rangaswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ298
Veeraswami, J.1. The suit promissory note was executed on 21st February,, 1953, for a sum of Rs. 1,000. There were two payments, one of Rs. 25 on 8th February, 1956 and the other of Rs. 527 on 8th May, 1957 both expressed to be towards principal and interest. There was a demand notice dated 15th September, 1959 served on the defendant and the suit was instituted on 7th January, 1960. It is common ground that the defendant is an agriculturist. It is also common ground that the payments were not appropriated before the date of the suit. In these circumstances the trial Court, applying Section 13 of Madras Act IV of 1938, directed that the defendant would be entitled to ' re-appropriation ' of the amounts paid by him with interest calculated at the rate of 51/2 per cent per annum throughout. The suit was decreed on that basis for a sum of Rs. 779-28 nP. with subsequent interest on Rs. 679-55 nP- at 51/2 Per cent Per annum from the date of the suit till payment. This petition is to revise ...
Peirce, Leslie and Co. Ltd., Managing Agents of Peria Karamalai Tea an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ330
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The question of the propriety of the non-employment of three workmen was referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. They were all dismissed by the management by the order, dated 1st November, 1960, on a charge that on the morning of 24th September, 1960, they instigated the other workmen not to work since there was a move on the part of the workmen to ask for a holiday that day on account of rain. The management at the domestic enquiry found the charge proved and punished the workmen as aforesaid. The propriety of this action questioned by the three dismissed workmen became the subject of an industrial dispute which was eventually referred for adjudication. The Labour Court, Coimbatore, came to the conclusion that there was altogether no basis for the charge and in that view directed the reinstatement of the three workmen with back wages. This petition is to quash the award.2. The point urged for the management is that the Lab...
Secretary, Vijayakumar Mills National Workers' Union Vs. the Managemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad427; [1964(8)FLR151]; (1963)ILLJ510Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. The petitioner, who was employed by the first respondent as a time-keeper, was dismissed from service on 29th March, 1958, on a finding that a certain charge framed against him was proved. His cause was taken up by the other workmen of the first respondent which eventually became the subject-matter of reference for adjudication, the issue referred to being whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified and to what relief he was entitled. The Labour Court, besides that issue, raised an additional issue as to whether there was not an industrial dispute. On that additional issue as well as on the question whether the Vijayakumar Mills National Workers' Union was entitled to represent the dismissed workmen, the Labour Court found in favour of the management. This was on the view that the dismissed workman being a time-keeper and a member of the staff, there was no community of interest between him and the other non-staff workmen of the concer...
The Management of Murugesa Naicker Co. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ158
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. By a common order on three applications under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, filed by three different workmen of the same management, the Labour Court computed the benefit of retrenchment compensation, notice pay and leave wages. The case for the employees was that their services were terminated with effect from 14th May, 1960, without payment of compensation and notice pay they were entitled to under Section 25-F of the Act. Though the management pleaded that this was not a case of termination but the workmen themselves voluntarily stopped from work, the Labour Court, on the evidence before it, found that the services of the three workmen were terminated by the management. Having stated that, the Labour Court proceeded:and they were thus retrenched and they are entitled to be paid notice pay, retrenchment compensation and other benefits payable to them. On that view, the Labour Court computed the benefits and allowed the claims except leave wages...
Secretary, Vijayakumar Mills National Workers' Union Vs. the Managemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1962
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ82
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner, who was employed by the 1st respondent as a timekeeper, was dismissed from service on 29th March, 1958, on a finding that a certain charge framed against him was proved. His cause was taken up by the other workmen of the 1st respondent which eventually became the subject-matter of Reference for adjudication, the issue referred to being whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified and to what relit f he was entitled. The Labour Court, besides that issue, raise d an additional issue as to whether there was not an industrial dispute. On that additional issue as well as on the question whether the Vijayakumar Mills National Workers' Union was entitled to represent the dismissed workman, the Labour Court found in favour of the management. This was on the view that the dismissed workman being a time-keeper and a member of the staff, there was no community of into rest between him and the other non-staff workmen of the concer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »