Chennai Court December 1963 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.
C. Murugesa Mudaliar Vs. Management of S.U.S. Davey Sons and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad503
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This writ appeal instituted by the second respondent in W. P. No. 723 of 1961 before Veeraswami J. will obviously have to be allowed, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopala, : (1963)IILLJ89SC which was followed and applied to the facts in W. A. No. 213 of 1962, decided by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and my learned brother, Ramamurti J.2. The facts in the present matter are that the second respondent was an employee of the management of Messrs. S. U. S. Davey Sons, Madras, the writ petitioner before the learned Judge. He; was dismissed from service with effect from 21st February 1959. But, admittedly, the order of dismissal was set aside by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on an appeal petition' filed by the second respondent (the present appellant) Under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. The effect of that, as the learned Judge (Veeraswami J.) himself states, was undoub...
G. Murugesa Mudaliar Vs. the Management of S.U.S. Davey Sons and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)ILLJ219Mad; (1964)1MLJ437
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. This Writ Appeal instituted by the second respondent in W.P. No. 723 of 1961 before Veeraswami, J., will obviously have to be allowed, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (1963) 2 L.L.J. 89 which was followed and applied to the facts of W.A. No. 213 of 1962, decided by the Honourable the Chief Justice and my learned brother Ramamurti, J.2. The facts in the present matter are that the second respondent was an employee of the management of Messrs. S.U.S. Davey Sons, Madras, the writ petitioner before the learned Judge. He was dismissed from service with effect from 21st February, 1959. But, admittedly, the order of dismissal was set aside by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on an appeal petition filed by the second respondent (the present appellant) under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. The effect of that, as the learned Judge (Veeraswami, J.) himself states, was u...
S. Sivaswamy Vs. Inspector of Panchayats and Local Boards, Being the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ402
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is the President of the Koothanur Panchayat. Under Section 150(1) of Madras Act (XXXV of 1958), the Inspector issued a notice to the President calling upon him to offer his explanation in respect of certain acts of omission and commission mentioned in the notice. An explanation was duly submitted. Thereafter, proceedings were started under the succeeding Sub-section of Section 150. A meeting was convened by the Tahsildar, and the proposal for the removal of the President was brought up for the consideration of the Panchayat. Out of the total strength of 15 members of the Panchayat, seven attended the meeting. The petitioner did not attend. These seven members passed a resolution accepting the proposal of the Inspector to remove the President. That was followed by a notification issued by the Inspector removing the President from office. According to the petitioner, he too issued a notice on 31st August, 1961, convening a meeting of the Panchayat ...
A.H.M. AllaudIn Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ426
K. Srinivasan, J.1. The question that stands referred to us for decision is:Was the assessee entitled to relief from double taxation with reference to the assessment for the year 1946-47 2. For the previous year ending with 31st December, 1945, the Indian assessment of the assessee was completed in 1947. It included the foreign income, that is to say, income from business carried on in Colombo, of Rs. 1,73,964. Upon the total income, the tax was computed at Rs. 1,20,346. On appeal, however, the total foreign business income was reduced somewhat, and the tax liability was also reduced to Rs. 1,07,678-8-0. After giving effect to various payments made by the assessee, it was determined that a refund of Rs. 12,667-8-0 was due to the assessee.3. It appears that the first Ceylon assessment was also made in 1947 and a tax of Rs. 2,21,756 was levied and paid. There was an additional assessment made some time later and the tax computed as due was also paid. The final assessment was, however, ma...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Geetha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ400
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. The Public Prosecutor has filed this Revision Case against the order in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Chingleput in proceedings under Section 29 of the Madras Children Act (IV of 1920). This section so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads:In any area to which the State Government shall direct that this section shall apply, any person authorised in this behalf in accordance with rules made by the State Government, may bring before a Court any person apparently under the age of fourteen years (a) who is found wandering and not having any home or settled place of abode or visible means of subsistence, or is found wandering and having no parent or guardian or a parent or guardian who does not exercise proper guardianship ; or (b) is found destitute...2. On 1st April, 1960, the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Chingleput Range, who is an authorised person under the above section applied to the District Magistrate (Judicial), Chingelput, to cert...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›