Chennai Court July 1963 Judgments
Chinnammal and ors. Vs. Sri Kannikaparameswari Deity by Trustees, Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ352
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. The Second Appeal is instituted by the defendants in the suit, against the preliminary decree for partition of the suit property into two shares and for allotment of the western moiety to the plaintiff-temple (respondent). There are only three grounds involved in the appeal, of which the first ground alone need detain us at any length. The facts relating to that ground are as follows:2. The original owner, Angammal, conveyed this property under Exhibit A-4, dated 19th September, 1938, which is styled as a settlement deed, and which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, can by no means be characterised as a testamentary disposition. In the relevant part of this deed, the settlor stipulated the following terms. I am making a free translation here of the Tamil text, which is quoted both by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.Venkatasami Naidu (my son) and his male heirs are to take and attain one-half (moiety) of the property. Chinnasami ...
Tag this Judgment!The Tanjor Permanent Bank Ltd. Vs. G.N. Muniswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad183
Veeraswami, J.1. This second appeal raises the question as to the correct principles applicable in determining the quantum; of damages to be given to a dismissed employee on a finding that the dismissal is wrongful. The respondent, when he was acting as the secretary of the appellant bank, was, by an order of the latter dated 5-4-1958, dismissed from service. Though he applied under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, he did not pursue that remedy. He instituted the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the order of dismissal was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement with all his rights and privileges, and for recovery of a certain specified sum apparently as arrears of salary. Alternatively, he also asked for damages for wrongful dismissal. That the respondent's dismissal from service was wrongful is no longer in question In this court. Both the courts below held that the respondent was entitled to damages for wrongfu...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sivanandy Vs. P. Bhagavathyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad237
Ramamurti, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the suit O.S. No. 66 of 1956 (Sub Court, Nagarcoil) filed by the respondent herein for restitution of conjugal rights. Her suit was decreed by the trial Court as prayed for and the present appellant preferred to this Court A. S. No. 84 of 1958 which was dismissed by Jagadisan, J. The present appeal is by the defeated defendant.2. The plaintiff's case is that she was married to the defendant in 1944 according to the custom and Hindu Sastras when she was 13 years old and the defendant was 17 years old, that after she attained age her nuptial ceremony was celebrated in the house of the defendant, that she lived with the defendant for sometime thereafter and that subsequently she was sent over to her parent's house. Her further case is that thereafter she has been staying in her parents' house and that despite repeated requests and all efforts on her part to join her husband and live with him, the latter has been, evading to take her...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and anr. Vs. the East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad81
Veeraswami, J.1. A case of this sort is rather uncommon. The plaintiffs who are the appellants, they having lost in both the Courts below on a point of jurisdiction, sued for a declaration that a certain agreement entered into between the second defendant, a labour Union, and the first defendant, the management, was not binding on them and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from implementing the terms of the agreement. It is common ground that there was an earlier agreement in about December 1958 between the two defendants the effect of which was that 200 casual workmen were recognised by the first defendant as probationary seasonal workmen entitled to certain privileges and emoluments.It appears that the second defendant entered into another agreement with the first defendant on 28th January 1960, which the plaintiffs attacked as prejudicial to them and not binding on them. They said in effect that the second agreement curtailed their rights by reason of the introductio...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. Devar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC904(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.(T.C. No. 29 of 1961)1. The respondents were assessed by the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer, South Madras and Chingleput, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 6,60,200-07 for the year 1957-58. They are dealers in timber carrying on business at Madras and their course of business partly consisted of importing timber from Burma and selling it to customers in India. They disputed their liability to the extent of a turnover of Rs. 1,95,490-67 on the ground that it represented sales of timber in the course of import. They relied upon the constitutional ban under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution as it then stood (before the sixth amendment). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner before whom the objection was raised however overruled it. They preferred a further appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and reiterated their contention that the turnover of Rs. 1,95,490-67 was not taxable. The Tribunal upheld this contention and granted r...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ratanchand Chordia and ors. Vs. Kasim Khaleeli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad209
Jagadisan, J.1. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by the respondent, who will be referred to as the plaintiff in this judgment for a declaration that he has a right of way across the pathway marked A B C D in the plan attached to the plaint and described in Schedule A to the plaint, and, for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants, who will be referred to as the defendants, from interfering with his rights and for a mandatory injunction to demolish the wall marked X Y in the said plan.2. The learned Third Assistant City Civil Judge, who tried the suit held in. favour of the plaintiff. On appeal by the defendants before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were reversed and the suit was dismissed. There was a second appeal to this Court by the plaintiff which was heard by Kailasam, J. The learned Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restored that of the ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. Private Limited Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC760(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. An interesting question of law is raised in this appeal from the order of the Board of Revenue, Madras, passed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that relates to the power of the Board to interfere with the revised order of assessment of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer implementing the order of the Commercial Tax Officer after the expiry of four years from the date of the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. These two officers functioned under the old Act of 1939.2. The sequence of events which have led to the filing of the present appeal are briefly as follows : The appellants are dealers in non-ferrous metals consisting mainly of brass and copper. Their business consists of purchase of scraps, conversion of the scraps into circles and sheets in their factory and selling the manufactured products. In respect of the assessment year 1955-56 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town, determined their net turnover liable to tax as Rs. 24,35,134-3-3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kodi P. Muthirala Pillai Vs. G. Thyagarajaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ230
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. The appellant filed an appplication under the provisions of Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, for a declaration that he was a hereditary trustee of Sri Gurunathawsami Temple, having been elected as a trustee by the Koilkudigals as per usage prevailing. The Deputy Commissioner held that he did not acquire any hereditary right to the office by virtue of the election and rejected the petition. On an appeal to the Commissioner, that order was set aside. The aggrieved persons later filed a suit under Section 62(3) of the Act for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. In that, they were successful. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in that case had been affirmed by Ramakrishnan, J. Hence this appeal.2. The case for the appellant is that the temple was originally founded and its properties endowed by one Sivagurnatha Pillai, who appears to have died more than 100 years ago. It is said that he managed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J. Sundaram, General Supplies Agenc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad433; [1964]52ITR474(Mad)
Venkatadri, J.1. The only question that arises for determination in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari is whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to revise or review its own order passed on 22nd December 1960.2. The facts are very simple and clear. The assessee is an exporter of coir mats and mattings at Alleppey. He returned a net income of Rs. 1827 for the period ended 31-12-1956, though his total receipts from business was to the tune of Rs. 4.46 lakhs. The assessee was not maintaining regular books of account. On investigation and enquiry, the Department found that several amounts were invested in the name of his wife in the Eastern Bank Ltd., Cochin. When the department called upon him to explain the source of the investment made in the name of his wife, the assessee was not able to explain it, but merely requested the department to treat the amount as undisclosed income spread over the assessed years. Thereupon the dep...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Somasundara Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1963
Reported in: [1963]14STC943(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of the Tribunal directing the petitioner to pay sales tax at six per cent, in respect of his turnover relating to tooth-powder manufactured and sold by him on the ground that it would come under the items enumerated in item 51 of the First Schedule to Act I of 1959. The assessee, V.P. Somasundara Mudaliar is a manufacturer and dealer in tooth-powder and rintan. For the assessment year 1959-60 he submitted a return showing a total turnover of Rs. 70,978 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 62,499-37. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, (North) Division, rejected his accounts as incorrect and incomplete and determined the taxable turnover to the best of his judgment at Rs. 76,696. He levied six per cent, tax on the goods holding that both tooth-powder and rintan are goods coming within the scope of item 51 of the First Schedule to the Act.2. Against this order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assista...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »