Chennai Court November 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.
R. Srinivasa Row Vs. Kaliaparumal (Minor) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad321
ORDER(1) This petition by a plaintiff is to revise the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore on the issue whether the finding in an earlier litigation in O.S. No. 56 of 1958 operated as res judicata against the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge found that the earlier finding so operated.(2) The sons of the plaintiff instituted the earlier suit impugning a sale executed by their father, who was the first defendant there, in favour of the 8th defendant on the ground that it conveyed joint family properties and that the sale was not supported by necessity or benefit and therefore was not binding on them. The first issue which the court had to decide in the earlier litigation was whether the suit properties were joint family properties, as contended by the plaintiffs, or whether they were separate properties of the first defendant, as contended by defendants 2 to 10. As I said, that issue was decided against the plaintiff's. In view of this, the court in the earlier suit sta...
G.A. Abdul Samath Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ153
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to issue to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kancheepuram, to permit the petitioner to appear by a Pleader in proceedings before that officer. It is said that the proceedings before that officer are arbitration proceedings in which a claim for a large amount has been made against the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice asking him to be present either in person or by a Pleader. When he appeared with his Counsel, the presiding officer refused to accept the vakalat presented by the Counsel stating that Advocates are not entitled to represent the parties in the arbitration proceedings The petitioner claims that when the notice issued to him specifically authorised him to appear either in person or by Counsel the Deputy Registrar bad no authority . to refuse to permit the Counsel to appear.2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Registrar it is stated that under the Rules framed under th...
Parvathi Ammal Vs. Mari Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1965
Reported in: [1966]17STC243(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition raises a question of interpretation of Section 57 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Certain assessment records were sought to be summoned by the petitioner in a suit which he instituted and which is pending disposal. Objection was raised to marking of some of the documents by the plaintiff as evidence on the ground that those documents were privileged and should be treated as confidential tinder Section 57(1) of the Act. This objection was upheld by the court below. This petition is to revise that order.2. The contention for the petitioner is that the scope of Section 57(1) is limited to voluntary disclosure of the records specified therein by the officer concerned and does not extend to the powers of civil courts to summon them. In other words, the argument for the petitioner is that Section 57(1) does not cover involuntary disclosure of the records specified in the Sub-section. Section 57(1) reads :All particulars contained in any statemen...
M. Ramachandra Bail Vs. M.R. Kanniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad401; 1966CriLJ1276
ORDER(1) This revision case in filed by Mr. Ramachandra Bail, who was the second accused in C. C. 3475 of 1965 on the file of the learned Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras. He was prosecuted under S. 282(2)(b) of the Indian Companies Act (Act I of 1956) hereinafter called the Act), convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, or in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Along with him, one other person was prosecuted as the first accused, but he was found not guilty and acquitted.(2) The question for consideration in this case, relates to the proper interpretation of the rule for retirement of directors in one-third proportion prescribed in S. 256 of the Act, in relation to the rule for the retiring age for directors prescribed in S. 280, and finally the penal provision enunciated in S. 282 of the Act. The circumstances of the case are briefly the following.(3) The petitioner, Dr. M. Ramachandra Bail, was born on 8-2-1899. He completed 65 years on 8-2-1964. He wa...
The Management of the Agri Horticultural Society, Madras Vs. the Workm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad375; (1966)IILLJ420Mad
ORDER(1) This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Labour Court, Madras by which it directed certain documents to be produced by the petitioner, the Management of the Agri Horticultural Society. The petitioner Society employs a number of workmen. Under S. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a dispute between the Management and the workmen stands referred to the Labour Court. The questions before the Labour Court called for the determination of these points:--(1) Whether the Society is carrying on an industry?(2) Whether the Union can represent the workers?(3) Whether the demand for fixation of scales of wages by the workers is justified?(4) Whether the existing rates of dearness allowance require revision? and(5) Whether a gratuity scheme has to be introduced?Among the preliminary questions directed to be tried in the first instance was whether the Society was engaged in an industry as defined in the Act. The Society, which is a body devoted t...
R. Lakshmi Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad399; [1966]36CompCas197(Mad)
ORDER(1) The petitioner was employed as a telephone operator in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. She claims to have complained of misbehaviour on the part of one Paramasivam, her immediate superior. Later, certain charges were framed against the petitioner and she was placed under suspension. These charges dealt with her absence from duty and instanced certain wilful acts of insubordination. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come to this court with a petition under Art. 226 with a prayer that the proceedings against her may be quashed. In the affidavit accompanying her petition, she denies the substance of the charges. She further alleges that there are no valid reasons for placing her under suspension. She claims that her request to allow her father to be present at the enquiry proposed to be conducted has been refused and that this denial prevents her from effectively and fully defending herself, the more so for the reason that she herself had complained of an attempt a...
Vadivelu Samban Vs. Annadana Chatram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad306; (1965)2MLJ538
(1) This petition by a tenant under Section 115, C.P.C. is to revise an order of the District Court, West Tanjore, by which it reversed an order of the Rent Tribunal, Valangiman at Kumbakonam, fixing fair rent for the holding, and restored the order of the Presiding Officer, Rent Court, Kumbakonam. The application for taxation of fair rent was originally made under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 1956. Along with this application were tried 158 other similar applications for fixation of fair rent. When these applications were pending disposal, the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 was enacted, which came into force from 2-10-1961. Section 62 of this Act made a partial repeal of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act 1956 in so far as they related to a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under a Public Trust. All these applications were, t...
Vadivelu Somban Vs. Annadana Chatram by Its Sole Trustee, A. Veerayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ538
K. Veerasawmi, J.1. This petition by a tenant under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is to revise an order of the District Court, West Tanjore, by which it reversed an order of the Rent Tribunal, Valangiman, at Kumbakonam, fixing fair rent for the holding, and restored the order of the Presiding Officer, Rent Court, Kumbakonam. The application for fixation of fair rent was originally made under the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956. Along with this application were tried 158 other similar applications for fixation of fair rent. When these applications were pending disposal, the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961 was enacted which came into force from 2nd October, 1961. Section 62 of this Act made a partial repeal of the provisions of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956 in so far as they related to a cultivating tenant in respect of any land held by him under a Publ...
R. Chinnaswami Naidu and Sons and ors. Vs. First Income-tax Officer, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad136; [1966]61ITR400(Mad)
(1) These petitions are to quash the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Circle J. Coimbatore, relating to the assessment year 1961-62. By those orders the reopened under S. 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922, earlier assessment orders made against each of the assessees, a Hindu undivided family, and included in each case a sum of Rs. one lakh to the chargeable income. This is on the view that what was stated to be a loan taken by each of the assessees in the sum of Rs. one lakh from Gopalakrishna Mills (P.) Ltd., should be deemed to be dividend within the meaning of S. 2(6-A)(e) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer overruled a contention for the assessee that at the time the loans were made. Gopalakrishna Mills (Pte.) Ltd., had no accumulated profits within the meaning of S. 2(6-A)(e) and that the development rebate reserve with the company could not be considered as accumulated profits for the purpose of that section. The Income-tax Officer accepted the position that but for the development ...
R. Chinnaswami Naidu and Sons and ors. Vs. the First Income-tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ124
Veeraswami, J. 1. These petitions are to quash the orders of the Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Coimbatore, relating to the assessment year 1961-62. By those orders he re-opened under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, earlier assessment orders made against each of the assessees, a Hindu undivided family, and included in each case a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the chargeable income. This is on the view that what was stated to be a loan taken by each of the assessees in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh from Gopalakrishna Mills Private Limited, should be deemed to be dividend within the meaning of Section 2(6-A)(e) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer overruled a contention for the assessees that at the time the loans were made, Gopalakrishna Mills Private Limited had no accumulated profits within the meaning of Section 2(6-A)(e) and that the development rebate reserve with the company could not be considered as accumulated profits for the purpose of that section. The Income-tax Officer accepted the pos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »