Chennai Court August 1963 Judgments
E.V. Kumar Vs. the University of Madras, Represented by the Registrar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad460
Ramakrishnan, J.1. As an outcome of the B. Sc. degree examination (New Regulation) held by the University of Madras in April 1962, two candidates one bearing roll No. 282 named E.V. Kumar and another bearing roll No. 283 named R. Mukundan were charged with malpractice while answering the paper on mathematics. It was reported to the Registrar of the University by the Additional Examiner for the paper, that he had reasons to suspect malpractice on the part of the aforesaid candidates, in answering their mathematics paper, because in the words of the Additional Examiner:'(1) question 2 (b): The answer of one candidate is the word for word reproduction of that of the other and such verbatim reproductions can rarely occur in answering the problems of this type.(2) Question 6 [a): One answer is the exact reproduction, of the other. In relations (4) and (5) occurring in the answers, number one is marked in the same fashion as follows:(3) Question 10(u): Mistakes of the same character occur in...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ranganathan Pillai Vs. Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad491; (1965)IILLJ66Mad
Ramamurti, J.1. The appellant herein was a permanent Upper Division Clerk of the . Cuddalora Municipality. In January 1954 quinquennial revision of the property tax of the Municipality took place. The rules of the Municipality provide for revision petitions being filed to the Commissioner against the orders of the authority levying the property tax and further appeals to the Municipal Councils from the orders passed by the Commissioner. In August .1955 six charges were framed against the appellant, the main charge being that he was mainly responsible for tampering with the dates of service of the orders of the Commissioner upon tax payers as entered in the books of the Municipality, and that such tampering has taken place with the ulterior object of enabling the assessees to prefer appeals to the Municipal Council even though the time prescribed under the rules had expired.After the framing of the charges the usual enquiry was conducted and the Commissioner found the appellant guilty o...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.M. Ol. M. Somas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad527
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These appeals are from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., reversing the concurring judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of monies due under certain transactions to be referred to hereafter. The respondents are of Indian domicile and they form members of a joint Hindu family with their home in Ramanathapuram District, they had a business at Ohne in Pegu District in Burma and in respect of two sums of Rs. 10,000 each borrowed from the appellants in the above appeals, they through the first respondent who was the Kartha of the family executed on 25-10-1937 two mortgages securing certain immovable properties belonging to them and situate in that country. The mortgage documents were duly registered in accordance with the law of Burma and they were kept alive by periodical acknowledgments made by the manager for the time being of the family. Such acknowledgments were made on 28-5-1940, 12-6-1941, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Workers of Buckingham and Carnatic Co., by the Binny and Buckingham an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad538
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. These two petitions have been filed by the Buckingham and Carnatic Co.'s Employees' Union and the Madras Textile Workers' Union purporting to act on behalf of the workmen employed by the Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd., for the issue of a writ of certiorari and mandamus respectively calling in question a settlement of an industrial dispute reached during the course of conciliation proceedings on 30-5-1963, between the management and the workers as represented by the Madras Labour Union, the third respondent herein. Before we begin to set out the facts, which have given rise to the present proceedings, we shall first give a few facts regarding the parties to the present dispute. The Buckingham and Carnatic Co., Ltd., to be referred to hereafter as the management or as the mills, is running one of the premier textile mills in the State which has been declared to be a public utility service under Section. 2(n)(vi) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 It em...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram and Co. (Private), Ltd. Vs. the First Additional Income-tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ1
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The petition prays for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order, dated 20th March, 1961, in G.I. No. S. 1002 of 1956-57 of the First Additional Income-tax Officer, Madurai. The petitioner, which is a limited company, is an assessee under the Indian Income-tax Act and the question raised is whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 35 of the Act.2. There was an order of assessment on 29th March, 1957 of the assessee's income, profits and gains for the assessment year 1956-57. Its total income was determined at Rs. 5,69,396. The income-tax and super-tax payable thereon was fixed at Rs. 2,47,325. The super-tax was computed on the basis that it was entitled to a rebate of Rs. 1,42,349 at the rate of four annas in the rupee as provided for under the Finance Act, 1956. The assessee had not distributed any dividend for several of the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1946-47 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Sundaram and Company Private Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1963
Reported in: [1964]52ITR763(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, referred the following questions to this court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Ac :'1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in disposing of the appeal as it did?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in entertaining the assessees contention relating to the applicability of section 34(1)(b) under rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules?3. Whether the setting aside of the assessment made under section 34(1)(b) was correct in law?'The assessee is a private limited company doing business as buying agents of Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai. In respect of the assessment year 1956-57 relevant to the accounting year 1955-56 (April 1, 1955, to March 31, 1956) its total income was assessed by the Income-tax Officer at Rs. 5,69,396. The assessment order was made on March 29, 1957. During the year ended March 31, 1956, it had declared dividends of Rs. 4,32,3...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai and Co., Pte. Ltd. Vs. District Registrar, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1966Mad36; (1965)1MLJ431
(1) The petitioner in W.P. 415 of 1961 was a private limited company. It had borrowed various amounts from the Reliance Bank of India Ltd. and had mortgaged certain immovable properties to that bank. By a power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner on 13-8-1957, the bank was authorised to sell the immovable properties. The document was stamped with stamps of the value of Rs. 11-4-0. On presentation of the power-of-attorney for registration, the Joint Sub Registrar called for particulars of the debts due to the bank. Thereafter, the Joint Sub-Registrar impounded the document. The District Registrar in his proceedings dated 9-10-1960 passed an order to the effect that the document numbered as P. 111 of 1957 was a power of attorney for consideration. made out of the amount of the debts owing to the Bank, and was chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 7138-80 under Art. 48(e) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act as amended. He called upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and im...
Tag this Judgment!Nallaya Goundar (Died) and ors. Vs. Angaiyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad260
Veeraswami, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal relates to the validity of the surrender made by Marayee by .v document dated 9-9-1931, in favour of her son-in-law and the sister's son of her husband. There were also other questions raised before and decided by the trial Judge, but they are not reiterated in this Court. The suit properties admittedly belonged to one Muthu alias Pacha Goundern. He died in 1903 leaving his widow Marayee. She also died on 20-5-1954. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are Mutnu's paternal grandfather's sons, who were all divided and claim to be the reversion is to his estate. Nataraja Gounden the husband of the first defendant, who is his third wife, was doubly related to Muthu, both as his sister's son as well as his son-in-law. Nataraja Goundem died in 1948, leaving the first defendant, his first two wives, one of them the daughter of Muthu, having predeceased him. Sinnu Goundan, the second plaintiff, died pending the suit and his legal representatives, plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavalu Naidu and anr. Vs. Nagarathnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad374
Veeraswami, J.1. The appellants sued for recovery of the properties covered by B schedule to the plaint on a claim that the sale thereof by their mother on 25th June 1943, was not for necessity of for the benefit of the estate and, therefore, not binding on them. The suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 (respondents 1 to 3) of whom the, first is the son of Krishnayya Naidu in whose favour the sale was executed, the second and the third are his wife and undivided brother respectively, asserting that the sale was supported by necessity and was beneficial to the estate and that the suit was also barred by limitation. The Court below accepted the defence on those points and dismissed the suit. The fourth respondent who is a brother of the appellants was impleaded as a defendant as according to them he would not co-operate with them.2. The main point argued before us on behalf of the appellants is whether the sale in favour of Krishnayya Naidu was supported by necessity or it was for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Thanjavur Permanent Bank Ltd. Vs. Dharmasamvardhani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad108; (1965)IILLJ50Mad
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree for the respondent to recover a certain sum of money. The respondent's husband was an employee of the appellant, a private Bank. There is no dispute that at his death was due to him the sum amount claimed by the respondent on the Employees' Provident Fund account he had with the appellant. The respondent claimed that, on his death the amount due under the fund became vested in her free of all his liabilities. There was also no controversy as to the precise amount due from the fund. But the appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the respondent should produce a succession certificate in order to get a decree, and that the amount was liable to a set off claimed by the Bank on account of alleged misappropriations by the respondent's husband during the time the was Secretary of the appellant.The appellant claimed the set off on the basis that there were certain rules framed to govern the provident fund and that under one...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »