Chennai Court January 1965 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.
Govindaraja Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. Rani (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad240
(1) The point that arises for decision in the two revision petitions relates to the scope and applicability of S. 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (referred to herein as the Act).(2) The brief facts are: One Govindaraju, hereinafter referred to as the petitioning-creditor, filed I.P. 11 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore, to adjudicate one Dhanappayhan, his wife Kamakshi and his son Srinivasan as insolvents on the ground that a sum of about Rs. 4,000 was due to Govindaraju under three promissory notes of the year 1948 executed in his favour by Srinivasan as well as a separate sum of Rs. 350 due under a promissory note executed in his favour by Srinivasan and his parents aforesaid in June 1951. The case of the petitioning-creditor was that Srinivasan's parents, Dhanappayan and Kamakshi, had guaranteed the liability of Rs. 4,000 of Srinivasan under the three promissory notes, aforesaid, that Dhanappayan had executed a mortgage in favour of Sivakami Ammal on 25-7-1951 for R...
K.S. Ramchandran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad57
Srinivasan, J.(1) The questions that stand referred to us are :'1. Whether the aforesaid provident fund was a recognised provident fund within the meaning of Ch. IX-A of the Income-tax Act, on 16-8-1956, the date of withdrawal by the assessee? 2. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6920 is exempt under S. 58-G(2).' The assessee was employed in the newspaper establishment of the 'Hindu'. He was a subscriber to a provident fund maintained by the employer. According to the rules governing the provident fund, the employer also makes a contribution equal to that made by the employee. One of the rules states that an employee, while in service, shall not be allowed to withdraw from the fund. If he so withdrew, he had to cease from the employment, though, for special reasons, the employer could agree to a member withdrawing from the fund and continuing in a service thereafter. On 16-8-1956, the employee assessee closed his account with the prov...
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras Vs. G.D. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad74; [1965]58ITR301(Mad); (1965)1MLJ539
Srinivasan, J.(1) For the several assessment years 1940-41 to 1953-54, the assessee had been assessed to a total tax of Rs. 28.87 lakhs. Out of this the demand for Rs. 2.27 lakhs became invalidated by the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Investigation Commission Act. Of the balance of the liability of Rs. 26.60 lakhs, the assessee had paid Rs. 11.11 lakhs. In April 1957, the assessee petitioned the Central Board of Revenue, pointing out that the liability that had been imposed upon him arose mostly out of the estimated additions which were disputed by him. He stated further that the net worth of his properties was only Rs. 6.51 lakhs and that if they were to be sold in realisation of the arrears of tax, the properties would fetch even less. He suggested that the total outstanding liability might be reduced to Rs. 6.50 lakhs and that he would withdraw all his petitions by way of appeals, revisions and the like for the relevant years. He also asked that the sum of Rs. 6.50 l...
The Management of Presidency Talkies (P.) Ltd., Madras Vs. the Workmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad39; (1965)2MLJ129
ORDER(1) This petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the management of the Presidency Talkies (P) Ltd. It is concerned with the question of employment of Sattar Khan who admittedly was working as ticket collector in the Paragon talkies, a cinema theatre owned by the petitioner-management. The management had reason to suspect that Sattar Khan became afflicted with leprosy, and therefore, before it could continue to employ him, insisted that he should produce a certificate from a competent medical officer in regard to the condition of his disease and to his being free from it. Two certificates from Dr. S. L. Ahmed, who is in charge of the Leprosy department of the General Hospital holding the rank of a civil surgeon, Ex. H. 4 dated 3-8-1962 and Ex. W. 21 dated 28-1-1963, were filed in the Labour Court. Ex. H. 4 stated that Sattar Khan was rendered 'non-infective by treatment, that he was fit to resume duty as ticket collector, and th...
Chotilal Sowcar Vs. R. Jawantraj Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad322
(1) This Letters Patent Appeal involves a question of considerable interest, which does not appear to have been the subject of judicial decision in the precise form in which it has been raised, so far, concerning the interpretation of S. 2(3)(b) of the Usurious Loans Act 10 of 1918. The preamble to this Act sets forth that "it is expedient to give additional power to Courts to deal in certain cases with usurious loans of money or in kind". The expression "suit to which this Act applies" is interpreted in S. 2(3) as "any suit" to which S. 2(3)(a) or (b) applies, S. 2(3)(b) "for the enforcement of any security taken or any agreement........ "(2) We are now in a position to describe the context of facts in which the argument has arisen. In consequence of certain acquisition proceedings relating to S. No. 3477, there was a reference to court under Ss. 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, by the Collector of Madras, on the ground of a dispute between a certain Jawantraj Sowcar, the ow...
Secretary Bank of Madura Ltd. Vs. General Secretary, Bank of Madura Em ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad491; [1970(20)FLR381]; (1965)IILLJ44Mad
(1) This petition under Art. 226 of the constitution is to quash an award of the Industrial Tribunal Madras on a reference for adjudication o an industrial dispute relating to the propriety of the termination by the Bank of Madura Ltd., of the services of A. R. Sambandam and S. Venkataramman. The former was working as a cashier in the Cochin branch of the Bank form 21-8-1961 and had been transferred to that place form its Coimbatore branch. He was then a vice-president of the Bank Employees' Union. N September 1961, the Bank charged him with misconduct on four counts (1) contrary to Regulation 19 of the Staff Regulation and rules of service, he received gifts form five constituents of the bank all belonging to Dharapuram in Coimbatore District and solicited gifts form four other persons hailing form the same place, (2) he applied for causal leave and permission for absence from August 23 to 27, 1961 and handed over his leave letter and safe keys to the officer-in-charge at his residen...
Rudrappa Chetty Vs. Narasimha Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad495; (1965)2MLJ160
ORDER(1) I consider that upon the facts of the situation with regard to which this interesting revision proceeding is filed, it is clear that the revision should be allowed both under O. 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. and under O. 8-A, Rule 1 C.P.C. This is upon very broad grounds of equity and the interests of injustice, as well as the strict applicability, to the facts, of the provisions that I have just cited. As regards the facts themselves, there is no dispute.(2) The suit in the court below was instituted by a plaintiff (here, respondent 2), as an assignee of a mortgage extended by the revision petitioner on 7-11-1950. The simple defence of the revision petitioner to the action, as party defendant, was that he (mortgagor) had discharged the debt by payment to the original mortgagee (assignor), so that the debt was totally extinguished thereby, prior to the date of assignment. The revision petitioner to have been passed by the assignor, evidencing the discharge of the debt. The revision petiti...
K.R. Thangapandian Vs. Kuchu Bomma Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1965Mad368
1. This Letters Patent appeal has been instituted by one K. R. Thangapandian, the second respondent in certain proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act (Act 8 of 1890), in the Court of the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, and the appellant before Ramakrishnan, J., in A. A. O. 103 of 1963. The background of facts in regard to which the proceedings arose in the District Court itself, has been succinctly set forth in the judgment of the learned Judge. A great deal of the previous history will be found stated in Ponnalagu Ammal v. State of Madras, , in the judgment delivered by Rajamannar,Chief Justice, on behalf of the Bench. For the purpose of the present proceeding, which does involve certain questions of interest upon the applicability of specific provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act to the facts, the matter might be taken up from the stage in the history, at which there was a dispute with regard to rival adoptions--the adoption by Ponnalgu Ammal of a minor as heir to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›