Chennai Court April 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.
Evershine Metals, by Its Managing Partner, V.M. Chakrapani and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad455; (1962)IILLJ479Mad
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is to quash an order of the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, dated 12th September 1957, regarding the concern of the petitioner as a scheduled industry and calling upon it to remit the employer's share of contribution, full and double administrative charges at the prescribed per centage for the period from 1st November 1952 to 31st March 1955 besides penal damages at 61/2 per cent. per annum on the delayed remittance for the period. The petitioner is said to be a proprietary concern upto 31st March 1959 when it was converted into a partnership firm. The business which was started in 1948 consists of the manufacture of builder's hardware, parts and accessories in the nature of gate handles, door handles, coat hooks, soap trays, tooth paste trays etc. The petitioner admits that in 1952 and subsequently more than 50 workers have been employed and that with effect from the 1st April 1956 it had introduced the provident fund s...
Public Prosecutor Vs. T.K. Ghul Sahib, Proprietor, G.S. Nataka Saba
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ276
Sadasivam, J.1. Appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal of the accused for an offence under Section 4(1) (a) (vi) of the Madras Gaming Act, 1930. The accused conducted a Tamil drama and he gave prizes to some of the purchasers of tickets, on the basis of some arithmetical calculations. The accused did so, in order to get large crowd for his drama. The learned Sub-Magistrate, Chidambaram, held that the act of the accused would not amount to wagering or betting. In order to sustain a conviction, the prosecution should prove that the accused used the premises for the purpose of gaming on any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in which the receipt or distribution of winnings or prizes in money or otherwise is made to depend on chance. It could hardly be said that there was any transaction or scheme of wagering or betting in this case. The members of the public purchased tickets to attend the drama and got the benefit of witnessing the drama. It is possible that the ...
Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. K.P. Sivasubramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad16
Jagadisan, J. 1. This is a civil revision petition by a cultivating tenant as defined under Madras Act 25 of 1955, who has been directed to be evicted by the Assistant Collector, Ohindigul, at the instance of his landlord. 2. The facts are quite simple. The petitioner is a lessee, holding agricultural lands under the respondent, the owner of the properties, agreeing to pay rent at a stipulated rate. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been the lessee for the past six years, commencing from the year 1956. He failed to pay the rent and executed a promissory note Ex. A-2 for a sum of Rs. 1100 in favour of the respondent. He also executed another promissory note Ex. A-3 for a sum of Rs. 450 for further arrears of rent due by him. The amounts covered by these two promissory notes represented arrears of rent due till the end of fasli year 1958-59. The petitioner failed to discharge these promissory notes, and, of course, did not pay any rent to the respondent. The latter, therefore, f...
R. Nagalingam Vs. University of Madras by Its Registrar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad31; (1963)1MLJ24
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner appeared in September 1961 for the Second B. E. (Integrated course) under the first respondent University. On 9-11-1961, the Registrar of the University sent a notice to the petitioner stating that the Chief Superintendent, University Examinations, Thyagaraja College of Engineering, Madurai, reported that he had reasons to suspect that pages 12 to 15 and 28 to 32 of the answerbook were brought from outside and inserted by him in the examination and jn support of it the Chief Superintendent relied that (1) There were folds at the middle of these pages, (2) the handwriting of the petitioner showed extreme calmness and (3) some of the matter he had written in those pages were irrelevant to the questions asked in the examination. In the circumstances, the Registrar, by a notice, called upon the petitioner to submit by return of post his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for having violated Rule 7 of the pamphlet '...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›