Chennai Court August 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.
Anglo-french Mills Vs. Muniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1965
Reported in: (1966)ILLJ695Mad
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appeal is by the Anglo-French Mills, Pondicherry, represented by its manager, and involves questions of considerable interest relating to labour law as it prevails in Pondicherry. For the purpose of clarification, we may state that there is a Labour Code which governs the relationship between employment organizations and workers in Pondicherry, an authorized translation of the French text which has been issued by the International code came into force, as far as Pondicherry is concerned, there were proceedings of mutual discussion and conciliation, upon all aspects of the relationship between employment and labour, authorized by the State. This has resulted in what is known as the Chakravarthi award, which is named after the deputed officer, who held the enquiry. Admittedly, organizations like the Anglo-French Mills (appellant) have framed standing orders for employees in pursuance of this award, which have also been revised and approved by the Arbitration Com...
Unnamalai Ammal Vs. P.A.J. Seyyadu Mohideen and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad231; (1965)2MLJ554
ORDER(1) This revision has been preferred against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, who rejected an applications made by a third party court auction purchaser for refund of the poundage paid by him on the sale being set aside on an application under Or. 21 rule 90 C.P.C. The petition was headed 'Under Section 151, Or. 21 rule 93 and Section 47 C.P.C'. Of course Section 47 C.P.C. cannot apply in this case, the petitioner not being a party to the proceedings. So far as O. 21, R. 93 is concerned, even that in my opinion cannot apply to this case. It runs:'Where a sale of immoveable property is set aside under rule 92, the purchaser shall be entitled to an order for repayment of his purchase money, with or without interest as the court may direct, against any person to whom it has been paid'.It is nobody's case that the poundage is paid to any other party. It is certainly not paid to the decree holder or to the judgment debtor.(2) As regards what is poundage, and to w...
S.S. Sivan Pillai and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ468
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These four references involve the interpretation of Section 15-C of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the scope of exemption available to shareholders in receipt of dividends The assessment proceedings right through have proceeded on the assumption that Sri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited, Tirunelveli, is a new industrial undertaking as defined by Section 15-C (2). but the status of the company as such has not been determined so far in the assessment proceedings. The four assessees before us are shareholders of this company and received dividends from it during the calendar years 19'4 and 1955, relevant to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. These dividends were included by the Income-tax Officer in the assessments of the shareholders notwithstanding their claim that they were entitled to exemption from tax under Section 15-C in their hands. They preferred appeals and the first series of them relating to the assessment year 195 -56 were allowed by the Appellate As...
Kutti Nadar and ors. Vs. Swamikutty Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: (1965)2MLJ575
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The same question of law arises in both the appeals and they may be dealt with together. In the suit out of which Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 100 of 1962 A.I.es a decree was passed by the trial Court on 14th October, 1947. The trial Court decree was registered under the provisions of the Travancore Registration Act. An appeal against the decree was dismissed on 21st January, 1949. The appellate Court's decree was also registered. A Second Appeal to the High Court of Travancore-Cochin was filed in 1950. When the Second Appeal was pending, the Indian Registration Act and the Indian Limitation Act came into force in the State of Travancore-Cochin on 1st April, 1951. After the coming into force of the Indian Acts, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal confirming the decree of the Courts below. The decree in Second Appeal was not registered. Now it is contended on behalf of the appellants in Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 100 of 1962 and the respond...
S. S. Sivan Pillai and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1965
Reported in: [1966]61ITR179(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These four references involve the interpretation of section 15C of of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the scope of exemption available to shareholders in receipt of dividends. The assessment proceedings right through have proceeded on the assumption that Sri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited, Tirunelveli, is a new industrial undertaking as defined by section 15C(2), but the status of the company as such has not been determined so far in the assessment proceedings. The four assessee before us are shareholders of this company and received dividends from it during the calendar years 1954 and 1955, relevant to the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. These dividends were included by the Income-tax Officer in the assessments of the shareholders notwithstanding their claim that they were entitled to exemption from tax under section 15C in their hands. They preferred appeals and the first series of them relating to the assessment year 1955-56 were allowed by the Appellate Assista...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›