Chennai Court October 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.
Salem-Erode Electricity Distribition Company (Private) Ltd. Vs. Salem- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1965
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ242Mad
Natesan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the decision of our learned brother, Ramakrishnan, J,, allowing a writ petition arising out of an industrial adjudication and making the rule nisi absolute, with a direction to the industrial tribunal to restore the case to its file and dispose of it afresh. The management of the Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company. Ltd., Salem, is the appellant before us. The employees are represented by the secretary, the Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company,' Ltd., Employees' Union, Salem, and the adjudication by the industrial tribunal, Madras, which was quashed on certiorari, was on an industrial dispute between the 62 workers of the above electricity distribution company and the management. The State Government referred to the industrial tribunal, Madras, for adjudication the question whether the curtailment of leave and holidays by the management of Salem-Erode Electricity Distribution Company, Ltd., Salem, in respect of the w...
In Re: Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1965
Reported in: 1967CriLJ776
Natesan, J.1. One Jayaraman who has been convicted under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of his wife, Anusooya and sentenced to imprisonment for life is the appellant before us represented by Sri R. Srinivasan, counsel appearing as amicus curiae,2. The accused and the deceased were married three years prior to the occurrence. They were closely related but the marriage was an unhappy one and there had been frequent quarrels between the couple, the accused often indulging in acts of violence on the deceased. There is evidence that, about month prior to the occurrence, at a Panchayat convened, the parties agreed to sever the marital relationship and the accused left for Bangalore. On the day of occurrence, 15-9-1964 when the deceased, with 15 other women, was transplanting paddy seedlings in the field of one Muthammal (P. W. 8) at about 10 a.m. the accused came on the scene and called the deceased out. As she was delaying response to his call, the accused entered on the puddled field...
Chinnammal and ors. Vs. Kumidhini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad366; [1966]61ITR597(Mad)
1. The defendants are the petitioners. They filed an application in a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by their father, for sending for a statement made by the plaintiff's mother to an Income-tax Officer and the original statement of the deceased husband of the first defendant to that officer. The defendants denied execution of the promissory note by their father and also pleaded that it was not supported by consideration. The statements before the Income-tax Officer above referred to are supposed to be to the effect that according to the makers of those statement, there was no dealing between them. The court below dismissed the application in view of S. 137(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.(2) On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that as one of the statements made to the Income-tax Officer was by the defendants' father himself, the requisition to the Income-tax Officer would fall within the purview of S. 137(5). In suppor...
Asia Bi (M.S. Salamath Transports) and anr. Vs. Ravi Roadways and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1965
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ109
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. These closely related proceedings involve certain questions of great interest and significance, arising both under the Motor Vehicles Act, and under the general law of the power of the State to regulate the function of a quasi-judicial Tribunal. At the outset itself, we might elucidate the context in which these proceedings have come up before us. In Writ Petition No. 201 of 1965, the petitioner before the learned Judge (Srinivasan, J.) was the widow of a certain Sabulal Sahib, who was operating three stage carriages on certain routes. With regard to the vehicle MDS 5217, plying on the route Pandamangalam to Namakkal via Velur and Mohanur, Sabulal entered into an agreement with Messrs. Ravi Roadways (first respondent in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1965), for sale of the vehicle which, of course, included the permit to which it was attached. In our judgment in Viswanathan v. Shanmugam (1966) 1 M.L.J. 363 : I.L.R. (1966) 2 Mad. 477, we have dealt extensively with th...
Controller of Insurance, Simla Vs. Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad437; [1966]36CompCas119(Mad)
Anantanarayanan, J.(1) Though this appeal has been argued very elaborately before us, we have ultimately come to the conclusion that it can be disposed of within a comparatively restricted compass. Adverting first to the nature of the proceedings, O. P. 95 of 1960 was instituted before Srinivasan J. by the Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. by its General Manager, the respondent being the Controller of Insurance, Simla, under S. 21(2) of the Insurance Act 1938, (Act IV of 1938). That sub-section enacts that if the Controller has declined to accept a return furnished to him by the insurer, under the provisions of the Act,'the court may on the application of an insurer and after hearing the Controller..... direct the acceptance of any return which the controller has declined to accept, if the insurer satisfies the court that the action of the Controller was in the circumstances unreasonable'.It was with reference to the scope of this provision that certain items of the return were objected to b...
Km. Pr. Km. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad331; [1966]62ITR159(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question referred to us terms on whether the properties in question were stock-in-trade of the money-lending business of the assessee or constituted capital. The matter relates to the assessment year 1957-58. The assessee is a firm carrying on money lending business in Ceylon owning properties there. The number of the firm once formed a Hindu undivided family, along with a certain person called Sattappa. The family, as it is said, carried on a business in money-lending and properties. The properties were sold and profits were derived therefrom. But there was a partition on 12th April 1956, at which the business assets were divided as capital, but not by metes and bounds. The firm dealt with the properties in a separate account, and the transactions relating to those properties were all entered in that account. There was intermingling of the funds, but there was no purchase of properties. During the accounting year ended 31st March 1957, the assessee sold two garde...
M.A. Khader and Co. and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC396(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. There are three batches of petitions before us each filed by a different assessee, which have been posted together because the petitioners claim that in view of the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court on Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231, they are entitled to a refund of the tax collected from them by a mistake of law. They ask for a rule directing the State to make a refund of the tax levied under the provisions of that Act. In the first batch which relates to the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62, the assessee, a registered dealer, was charged to sales tax on inter-State sales, which he effected, of tanned hides and skins. His course of dealing was to purchase tanned hides and skins from local dealers and sell the same on consignment basis by lorry or train to dealers outside the State. The Supreme Court delivered judgment in State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Sett...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›