Chennai Court April 1964 Judgments
In Re : Rathamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ452
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. The revision petitioner has been convicted under Section 2(1)(a) and (1) and Section 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and to a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai.2. The point which is stressed in this revision by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri Kumaramangalam, is a very interesting one. As the lower appellate court itself remarks, the fact that a sample of the adulterated milk was purchased by the inspector, P. W. 1, is not in dispute. As far as the analysis of the milk is concerned, we have the report of the Public Analyst to the effect that the sample contained 8.8 per cent of solids not fat, whereas the proper percentage for the relevant freezing point, with regard to a mixture of genuine cow-milk and buf...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chenniappa Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: [1964]53ITR323(Mad)
RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - This reference to a Special Bench has been necessitated by reason of certain doubts felt as to the correctness of the decision in Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner Of Income-tax. The question that falls for determination on this reference can be formulated thus :'Whenever rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, in so far as it enables the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance, is ultra vires ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are these :The assessee owned 1,674 shares in Asher Textiles Limited and nine out of twenty shares in Textile Corporation (Private) Limited, both at Tiruppur. The Textile Corporation (Private) Limited was the managing agent of the other company, its managing directors being the assessee and one Mr. Asher. Difference appear to have arisen between these two some time during the year 1954, and the assessee agreed to sell and by a document dated December 21, 1954, sold his entire holding in the two companies to Mr...
Tag this Judgment!General Commercial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: [1966]62ITR459(Mad)
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. - This consolidated reference arises out of proceedings relating to the assessment of the General Commercial Corporation Limited, for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50, the assessment for the former year having been initiated under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant year of account for the two years in question is the corresponding previous financial year. Three questions have been referred to us for our opinion under the directions issued by this court under section 66(2) of the Act. They are :'(1) Whether in respect of the assessment for the year 1948-49, section 34(1) (b) proceedings initiated for assessment are illegal and without jurisdiction ?(2) Whether the notice issued in respect of section 34 proceedings for the assessment year 1948-49 is illegal, having not been addressed to or served on the principal officer of the assessee-company ?(3) Whether, in the circumstances of the case, there are material to justify the adoption of...
Tag this Judgment!S. Cenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad62
(1) This reference to a special Bench has been necessitated by reason of certain doubts felt as to the correctness of the decision in Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . Thequestion that falls for determination on this reference can be formulated thus."Whether Rule 24 of the appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 in so far as it enables the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal for default of appearance, is ultra vires?"The facts giving rise to this reference are these:The assessee owned 1674 shares in Asher Textiles Ltd. and nine out of twenty shares in Textiles Corporation (P) Ltd, both at Tiruppur. The Textile Corporation (P.) Ltd, was the managing agent of the other company, its managing directors being the assessee and one Mr. Asher. differences appear to have arisen between these two, sometime during the year 1954 and the assessee agreed to sell and by a document dated 21-12-1954 and the assessee agreed to sell and by a document dated 21-12-1954, sold his entire holding in the two...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore and ors. Vs. P. Amalana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad203; (1964)2MLJ421
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Rajagopalan J. in W.P. 1516 of 1956 presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was filed by one P. Amalanathan, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police. On complaints received that he was corrupt, a departmental enquiry was undertaken against him, on the basis of 16 charges. The details of the procedure at the departmental enquiry will be considered at length later in this judgment. At this stage, it will suffice to note that the preliminary enquiry which involved the examination of witnesses, was conducted by three officers one after the other. The last of them Sri Rangabhashyam prepared a detailed report (or minute as it is called) embodying his findings on the charges, and submitted them to the Deputy Inspector General of Police the authority empowered to punish the Sub-Inspector of police under the departmental rules. He was dismissed from service by the Deputy Inspector General of police. His appeal to the Inspec...
Tag this Judgment!Kamala Bai Vs. T.R. Rathnavelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad88
(1) The plaintiff, a Hindu wife, whose suit for maintenance was decreed by the trial Court and dismissed by the appellate Court in appeal is the appellant in the second appeal.(2) This is an unfortunate case where the marriage struck the shoals even immediately after the marriage. The parties were married on 16-61948, and it appears that the plaintiff lived with her husband, the defendant, for about 20 days or so after the marriage and left her husband's house to her mother's house on grounds of ill-treatment. A male child was prematurely born to her on 2-2-1949 and died in a few days. The canker of suspicion that he may not be the father of the child had somehow wormed its way into the mind of the husband and estranged feelings between the spouses led to two suits--(1) O. S. No. 597 of 1949 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for maintenance by the wife, and (2) C. S. No. 156 of 1949 in the Original side of this Court by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights.(3) The t...
Tag this Judgment!Marudanayagam Pillai Vs. Sola Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad200
(1) The above second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, who affirmed that of the learned District Munsif Karur.(2) The suit was one for partition and separate possession, the plaintiff claiming that the suit properties were joint family properties and that he was entitled to a 1/8th share therein. the 2nd defendant in the suit is his father. the 1st defendant is the father of the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant is another son of the 1st defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of the 2nd defendant by his second wife.(3) The principal defence in the suit was that the plaintiff was not the son of the 2nd defendant. On behalf of the defendants, it was alleged that though the plaintiff's mother, Ponnammal, has been married to the 2nd defendant in 1930, she was having illicit connections with her sister's husband, Ponnuswami Pillai, that she left the house of the defendants even immediately after the marria...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Ismail Khizer HussaIn and Co. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad153; (1965)ILLJ300Mad
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the Inspector of Factories not to enforce Rule 3 of the Factories Rules in respect of the petitioner's tannery and take further proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance thereof. The facts are these. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of tanning hides and skins in certain premises from 1954. These very premises had been in use as a tannery for the last 35 years. In 1957, the then owner of the premises became an insolvent and the premises were purchased by the petitioner in insolvency proceedings. From 1954 onwards, therefore the petitioner has been carrying on the business of tanning obtaining the necessary licences under the Factories Act. In December 1957, the Assistant Inspector of Labour called the attention of the petitioner to S. 6 of the Factories Act and Rule 3 of the Factories rules and asked the petitioner to submit a site plan, a plan of el...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen Employed in Rob Roy Estates, Coonoor Vs. Presiding Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad364
ORDER(1) On a reference by the State Government, buy G. O. Ms. No. 4366, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 1-7-1961, under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for adjudication of the dispute relating to the claim of the staff members of the Rob Roy Estate for additional bonus for the years 1953-54 to 1958-59, the Labour Court, Coimbatore, decided by its award, dated 26-9-1961, that the staff members were not eligible for additional bonus for the years. The claim for additional bonus mainly turned upon the question whether Rob Roy Estate could be treated as a separate unit of Spencer and Co., Ltd., for purposes of bonus. On a consideration of the entire evidence and circumstances, the Labour Court was of the opinion that though Rob Roy Estate could exist independently of the other units, it could not, however, be treated as a separate unit for purposes of bonus. This opinion of the Labour Court was based on its findings that (i) the profits of Spencer and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mettupalayam Coonoor Service (P) Ltd. Vs. the Nilgiri Motor Transport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad91; (1965)1MLJ248
ORDER(1) This is a petition to quash and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal confirming an order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nilgiris, by which he revised the timings for the first respondent's stage carriage MDN 4251 since replaced by MDN 5000 on the route Ootacamund to Mettupalayam. This he did on an application by the first respondent which was notified under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner objected to revision of timings on the ground that there was no need therefore, particularly the change for night halt from Ootacamund to Meetupalayam. The Secretary overruled this objection and found that a revision of timings for the first respondent's bus would be in public interest. He was of the view that, having regard to the traffic, it was necessary to provide through trip from Mettupalayam to Ootacamund between 6 and 7 am. In purported exercise of the powers delegated to him under Rule 134-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 he sett...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »