Chennai Court July 1966 Judgments
Sri Sadayapillai Trust Tiruppanandal and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad396; [1967]63ITR520(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) On an application from Sadaya Pillai Trust by its trustee, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kumbakonam, by his order dated 31-8-1962, exempted from tax, under Section4(b) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 the income from certain lands specified in the order as being wholly held under trust for religious or charitable purposes. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, in exercise of his powers under Section 34 and by order dared 4-11-1965 set aside the exemption and directed that the income should be brought to tax in accordance with law. This is on his view that, if any excess out of the income derived from the properties remained after the performance of the objects of the trust, such excess income might be appropriated for himself by the turn trustee for the time being.(2) In our opinion, the order of the Income-tax Officer granting exemption is correct. The relevant provision in the Act is clause (b) to Section 4. That section defines 'total a...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rama Machinery Corporation (P) Ltd., Madras Vs. N.R. Murthy and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad452; [1967(14)FLR112]; (1966)IILLJ899Mad
ORDER(1) These two writ petitions are connected and may be dealt with together. A dispute. I. D. 63 of 1963, concerning the discharge of the first respondent herein and one Shanmugham was referred to the Labour Court under section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Government on 12-12-1963. A compromise was entered into between the parties on 8-10-1964 by which the management agreed to reinstate Shanmugham from 25-9-1964 and to pay him three months' back wages. The management also agreed to reinstate the first respondent from 19-10-1964 and to pay him back wages for three months. An award on the terms of the compromise was passed on 8-10-1964. On 19-10-1964 the first respondent was reinstated and three months wages were paid to him, as agreed to in the management gave notice to 19 persons, including the first respondent, intimating them that they were to be retrenched. Retrenchment compensation was paid and the management stated that the first respondent was retrenched as t...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Neelakantan and anr. Vs. Saidapet Annadhana Samajam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad303
(1) This application by the plaintiff is to implead Saidapet Annadhana Samajam by its Secretary, C. Bakthavatsalam as second defendant. There is a connected application for consequential amendment of the cause title and the several paragraphs of the plaint. That matter is not now before me as the said application is not stamped or numbered.(2) Applicant-plaintiff's have filed the above suit for a scheme for safeguarding the properties of the aforesaid Samajam and its income, for proper administration of the affairs of the Samajam, for removal of Bhaktavatsalam from all posts which he claims to hold as, according to the plaintiffs, he has committed various acts of breach of trust, for appointment of a Commissioner-cum-Receiver to take inventory and for accounts etc. The plaint is laid under S. 92 C.P.C. and the Advocate General has given consent to the institution of the suit as originally framed wherein C. Bhaktavatsalam is impleaded as the sole defendant.(3) The averments in the plain...
Tag this Judgment!R. Chockalingam Vs. Sundari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ327
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition filed under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code A.I.es out of proceedings in M.C. No. 334 of 1965 instituted under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, before the learned District Magistrate of Ramanathapuram by one Sundari against one Chockalingam. Sundari has alleged in her petition that Chockalingam married her, and she claims maintenance for herself and her child. Chockalingam appeared before the Court and filed an application M.P. No. 863 of 1965 stating that, for the reasons mentioned in his petition, the Court might be pleased to dispense with his personal attendance and to permit him to appear by a Pleader. He submitted that the action was in the nature of a blackmail but we are not now concerned with it. He pointed out that he was District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam District in Kerala State, and that,, because of his official duties, it would not be possible for him to attend the Court of the District Magistrate at ...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Haji Gulam Mohideen Sahib Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1966
Reported in: [1966]18STC346(Mad)
Sadashivam, J.1. Petitioner P.K. Haji Gulam Mohideen Sahib was doing business in grocery and general goods in Longly Road, Shevapet. His assessments for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60 were revised by the Sales Tax Department on 22nd September, 1963, as it was noticed on recovery of certain accounts relating to his business, that he had omitted to account for large transactions in his accounts, and as a result of these revisions and the assessment for the subsequent year 1960-61, demand notices were served on the petitioner on 7th October, 1963, and as he failed to pay the tax so assessed within a month, he was prosecuted under Section 45(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the ground that he had fraudulently evaded payment of the tax assessed and demanded by the department. It is stated that the prosecution had been withdrawn subsequently. The petitioner filed I.P. No. 3 of 1965 in the District Munsif's Court, Salem, to adjudicate him as insolvent. It was opposed by the Sales T...
Tag this Judgment!Sakuntala Vs. Thirumalayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ326
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, arises out of a proceeding instituted under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, by a wife against her husband for maintenance on the ground of cruelty and second marriage. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee, before whom the proceeding was instituted, declined to entertain the petition on the following ground ;The place where the respondent resides, or is or where he last resided with the petitioner it Tiruttani. So, the case would be filed before the District Munsif-cum-First Class Magistrate as Tiruttani. 2. Now it is not disputed before me by Sri S. Balasubramaniam, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the respondent (husband) has always been residing in a village in Tiruttani Taluk. But he contends that Section 488(8), Criminal Procedure Code, enables the petitioner to institute proceedings anywhere in the District of Chingleput of which Tiruttani Taluk is a part...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Pugalagiri Nadar and Sons, Through Its Managing Partner Sri S.P. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ441
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of a suit O.S. No. 290 of 1963 filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk for recovery of a sum of Rs. 755.67 P. 230 bags of sugar were consigned to the plaintiff from Bijnar in northern India to the railway station at Dindigul where the plaintiff resides. On arrival at Dindigul 46 bags were damaged and there was also some shortage. The damage was assessed by the railway authorities at 10 per cent in the case of 34 bags and at 5 per cent in the case of 12 bags. The plaintiff filed the suit for damages representing (1) shortage and (2) damage. The defence of the railway was that they were not negligent. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit however, found that the railway had been negligent, but he gave a decree only respect of the shortage. He declined to pass a decree in respect of the damages on the ground that the plaintiff had not let in any evidence t...
Tag this Judgment!Menon (N.K.G.) Vs. Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity System ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ537Mad
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioner joined service as a linesman in the Pykara Electricity System of the Electricity Department of the State of Madras. He was promoted as assistant construction foreman in 1952 and was appointed as construction foreman in 1954. After the passing of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the petitioner was transferred to the State Electricity Board in 1958. Under Section 79(c) of the Act, the board is authorized to pass such rules and regulations regarding the conditions of service of its employees. The board, in pursuance of this power, passed a resolution by which it is provided that the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules shall be made applicable to all its employees.2. The petitioner was serving as construction foreman in Wandiwash Construction Subdivision. On 24 June 1961, it is the case of the Electricity Board that the petitioner was entrusted with two concrete poles for transportation to the spot where it had to be erected and h...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Viswanathan Vs. G.P. Rangaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad244
1. My learned brother has dealt with the facts and the Issues involved in the appeal So fully, that I am thereby enabled to dispense with a recapitulation of the background of fact, and the parts of the statute law that are applicable to the case. I am in entire agreement with his conclusions, and the reasoning on which they are based; but, in view of the interest of the main issue, I have been tempted to set forth a brief analysis.2. Perhaps the best way to deal with the main issue, will be to state the argument of Sri Kumaramangalam for the respondents, in its clearest and strongest form. The argument is, tersely, to the effect that the Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed into the question of the impugned vote in this case; hence, it is argued, the learned Judge (Srinivasan, J.) had no option but to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, by the issue of the writ. Sri Kumaramangalam points out that, even under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the disqualific...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Gokaldas Lalchand by Agent Ramchand S. Pahlajani and anr. Vs. V.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1966
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ381
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioning creditors to adjudge the debtor, V.S. Krishnamurthi, an insolvent on the ground that he had committed an act of insolvency within the meaning of Section 9(g) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and in support of their case the petitioning creditors relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.1, the Multhani broker who arranged for the loans, as well as the letter Exhibit P-2 passed by the debtor to P.W.1.2. Mr. Jagannatha Rao, learned Counsel for the debtor raised two points : (i) that the letter Exhibit P-2 does not amount to giving notice by the debtor of his intention to suspend payment of his debts within the meaning of Section 9(g); (ii) and that, in any event, any such intention as revealed or disclosed in Exhibit P-2 is not suspension of payment of the entirety of the debts, i.e., debts due to all the creditors in a collective body, but only the debts to the tune of Rs. 85,000 referred to in Exhibit P-2 due by the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »