Chennai Court March 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.R. Subbaier Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad112; (1963)ILLJ23Mad
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to forbear from enforcing his order No. D/MD/598 Regl. dated 28th April, 1957.2. The petitioner is a firm of partnership running a factory at Tiruchirapalli. The factory was started as early as 1942. The factory was devoted for the purpose of manufacturing (i) tapes for insulation; (ii) lamp wicks; (iii) braided cords; (iv) sewing thread rolls which are reeled from bundles purchased from mills. More than 50 persons have all along been employed in this establishment. The Employees Provident Funds Act (Act XIX of 1952) applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I of the Act and in which 50 or more persons are employed. After the Act came into force the Regional Provident Fund Inspector inspected the petitioner's factory. He scrutinised the samples ...
Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad19; [1962]46ITR820(Mad)
Jagadisan, J. 1. This is a reference application arising under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act (Act 27 of 1957) and the question raised is 'whether the asset of Rs. 1,43,727 is exempt under Section 5(1)(xxi) read with the second proviso thereunder of the Wealth Tax Act?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1939. It is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of absorbent cotton wool. The Board of Directors of the company resolved, on 3-3-1955, at a duly constituted meeting, to establish a new spinning unit with 6,000 spindles under the name of 'Sundarsanam Spinning Mills'. On 25-4-1955, the company applied to the Government of India for licence to establish the spinning unit under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The license was granted by the Government on 17-8-1955. In the months of January and February 1956, the Company placed orders with Machinery ., Bombay, and with Voltas Ltd., Madras, ...
Saleha Begum and ors. Vs. A. Hajee Abdul Rahim Sahib and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad97
Jagadisan, J.1. This appeal relates to the question of costs disallowed by the learned City Civil Judge in his judgment and decree in O. S. No. 1735 of 1957 on his file.2. The suit was filed by a firm called Messrs. A'. Hajzee Abdul Rahim Sahib and Co., represented toy partners (1) A. Hajee Abdul Rahim Sahib, (2) A. Jameel Ahmed Sahib and (3) S. Mohamed Ismail Sahib, praying for the recovery of a sum ofRs. 17,956-85 with interest thereon at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the plaint and for other reliefs from the defendants in the suit It is not necessary to refer to the averments in the plaint or in the written statement. One of the objections raised on behalf of the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable, as the plaint firm was not registered as required by the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. This question of the maintainability of the suit was tried as a preliminary issue by the learned City Civil Judge, as the issue raised the fundamental question of the ...
Mohammed Mohideen Vs. State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad132
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. One Hakim Mohamed Yusuf Sahib, father of the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4, who was carrying on his calling in medicine under the name of 'Mohamadia Vaidya Salai' at Porto Novo, executed a deed of wakf On 1st April 1941, in respect of some of his properties and medicinal business. By that deed, it is stated, he directed that his sons should continue the business under the name of 'Hakim Mohamed Yusuf Mohamadia Vaidya Salai', and the net income therefrom applied to certain purposes.Under the terms of the deed, the petitioner, he being the eldest son, was to be the mutuavalli, and, after him, each of his brothers in the order of seniority, and, thereafter, their relative children. According to the petitioner, on his father's death in 1942, he succeeded to the post of mutavalli in 1943, and has, since then, been holding the office and administering the wakf and its properties. The second respondent (the second son of the late Hakim) applied to the State Wakf boa...
T.R.P. Swamy Vs. the Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ229
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner stated that the action taken or proposed to be taken by the management is an act of victimisation and that the Tribunal, while considering the question of grant or refusal of leave under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act should have gone into that question and expressed its opinion. In one place the Tribunal has considered certain circumstances and felt that the punishment proposed might be regarded as excessive. Even so, having regard to the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33(2) of the Act, it rightly confined itself to that jurisdiction. I can, therefore, see no error of jurisdiction or other error apparent on the face of the order of the Industrial Tribunal.2. If the petitioner feels aggrieved on the ground of victimisation, the proper remedy is not by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, under Section 33(2). The petition is dismissed....
Madras Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR152(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - This is a reference under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act raising a question which, judged in terms of the statute, as indeed it ought to be, present no difficulty. In answering the question in favour of the revenue, justice according to law will undoubtedly be done. But whether there should be an amendment of the statute to temper legal justice with equity is a matter worthy of consideration by the legislature.The Madras Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Ltd., Madras, the assessee in this case, is a Co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. One of the sources of income of the assessee is interest from securities. For the year ended June 30, 1955, the previous year for the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee earned the sum of Rs. 4,30,453 as interest from Government securities. The assessees contention before the department was that there should be a deduction from the said amount in accordance with certain departmental i...
Thiagaraja Chettiar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR393(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee is a registered partnership firm which under a managing agency agreement dated 14th March, 1945, carried on a business as the managing agents of Sri Meenakshi Mills Limited. Under this agreement, the assessee was entitled to an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem and 5% of the annual profits of the company. The mills had branches at Usilampatti and Pudukottah. The present reference is confined to the percentage of profits which the assessee became entitled to in respect of these two branches only.For the assessment years 1946-47 to 1950-51, the mills credited in its accounts the monthly allowance stipulated as well as the 5% profits relating to the head office at Madurai. The profits relating to the Usilampatti and Pudukottah branches were not so credited by the mills in its accounts. In respect of the ascertained but uncredited profits of the two branches, assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer. In the appeals to the appellate Assistant Commissioner...
Ramakrishna Naidu Vs. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad17
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai, J. in S. A. No. 15 of 1957. That appeal was tiled against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in A. S. No. 127 of 1955 preferred against the decree of the District Munsif, Tirukoilur in O. S. No. 282 of 1952. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of this Letters Patent Appeal are briefly the following: 2. The suit property is 5 acres and 35 cents of dry land in a village near Chidamoaram in South Arcot district. The defendant, Palaniappa Chettiar is a Nattukottai Chettiar who was at one time doing money-lending business in Chidambaram. His native place is Valayapathi near Pudukottai. The suit property belonged to one Narayanaswami Nadar, who had borrowed money from the defendant. The defendant obtained a decree, attached the suit property, brought it to sale in court auction, and purchased it on 14-4-1941. The sale was confirmed on 28-6-1941, and...
Assistant Director of Fisheries Vs. Muthumeenatchiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad9; (1962)IILLJ467Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., in Appeal against Order Nos. 239 and 338 of 1957. The appellant before us, in both these appeals, is the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Tuticorin. The prior facts necessary for a consideration of these appeals are briefly the following. The Gulf of Mannar in the extreme south-east corner of Peninsular India has been famous for its pearl, and chank fisheries from time immemorial. The Government of Madras claim these chanks as their property and therefore no private fishing for chanks is allowed. There is a special season for the chank fishery. The services of divers are utilised for the purpose by the Fisheries department of the Government in the following manner. They are required to take a licence (free of any charge), and the licence contains these conditions:'The licencee shall not dive for chanks anywhere in the sea except in the places specified by the fisheries officer...
Sha Vaktavarmal Seshmull Vs. Shah Nainmull Umaji and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad436
ORDER(1) Shah Nainmull Umaji and Co., the first respondent in the above civil revision petition, entered into contracts individually with 29 persons for the purchase of camphor. The petitioner was one of those persons who entered into a contract, Each of the contracts was made subject to the rules of the Madras Kirana Merchants Association, of which the parties to the contract were members. The rules of the Association provided for reference of disputes between its members to arbitration. in respect of one such contract, a seller, between whom and the first respondent a dispute arose with the permission of the Association filed O. S. No. 1291 of 1959 in the City Civil Court at Madras for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000, as damages for breach of con-tract on the part of the latter, the breach complained of being failure to take delivery of the goods contracted to he sold. The 28 remaining persons, each of whom also had similar claims against the first respondent, applied to the Associat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »