Chennai Court September 1966 Judgments
K.J. Lingan and anr. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ59
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raises a common question of law, viz., whether a revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 33 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Board of Revenue under Section 35, against a notice by way of composition under Section 46 of the Act.2. The petitioners are alleged to have committed various offences, such as, failure to send a return as required under Rule 9(1), failure to maintain true and correct accounts and records as required under Section 40, failure to send an advance estimate of turnover as required under Section 13, contravention of restriction or condition notified under Section 17 (Section 18), wilful submission of untrue return punishable under Section 15(2)(a) and the like. Composition of the offences aforesaid is provided in Section 46 of the Act. Under the section, the prescribed authority may accept, from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence ag...
Tag this Judgment!V.T. Ramaswami and anr. Vs. the Management of Gemini Studios
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ289
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. These three revision petitions are to revise the order of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in P.W.A. Nos. 6, 8 and 9 of 1962. The petitioner in C.R.P. Nos. 1002 and 1003 of 1963 is the same. He as well as the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1001 of 1963 are tailors in Gemini Studios. They applied to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who is the authority competent to deal with applications under Payment of Wages Act, for directing their employer to pay them overtime wages. The Additional Commissioner dismissed their applications on the ground that they were not workmen as defined in Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, therefore the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act would not be applicable to them. On appeal, the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, came to the conclusion that 'persons employed' mentioned in the Payment of Wages Act cannot be equated to 'worker' as defined in the Factories Act and that the applicants could not ...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Bibi Vs. Chinnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad83
(1) The parties to this litigation are a Muslim mother and her two daughters. The eldest of the two daughters is the plantiff; the mother is the first defendant and the other daughter figures as the second defendant. In 1928, the first defendant for herself and as guardian of her then minor daughters instituted a suit O.S. No. 148 of 1928, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai town, for partition of their shares in certain properties and secured under the decree in the said suit for herself and her daughters the southern portion of a house and 3.34 acres of nanja land. There have been some alienation of the properties thus obtained. The present suit has been instituted by the elder daughter for partition and separate possession of the remaining properties, the house described as item 1 in the plaint schedule and an extent of 1.20 acres of land described as item 2 in the plaint schedule. The shares of the parties are 16/39 each for the plaintiff and the second defendant and...
Tag this Judgment!Murali Trading Co. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC221(Mad)
Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. We have considered the scope of these writ proceedings, and the facts with reference to which they have been instituted. We think it is sufficient for us to observe that, in all these cases, the assessment has been primarily based upon an inference of escaped or suppressed transactions of sale of soaps, liable to be taxed, on the circumstantial evidence of a number of collection entries in the cash accounts, and certain slips kept by the employee of the firm in charge of cash.2. Very briefly stated, the crux of the argument of learned counsel for the concerned firm (Sri Thiruvenkatachari) is that these inferences are not warranted by the circumstantial evidence referred to above. His claim is that his client (assessee) undertook to explain everyone of these items relied on, as relating to and explicable in terms of other items in the cash accounts, and not as constituting any evidence, in any sense, of suppressed sales. Learned counsel argues further that there ...
Tag this Judgment!Gowrammal Vs. Lingappa Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad99
(1) This civil miscellaneous second appeal comes before us at the instance of our brother, Venkatadri J.(2) The respondent-decree-holder obtained a money decree on 22-6-1953 against the appellant in O.S. No. 208 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri. It is common ground that in 1959, a certain area was carved out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Krishnagiri Munsif's Court and a separate Court of District Munsif with jurisdiction over that area was established at Hosur. The decree-holder sought to proceed in execution of the decree by attachment of an amount lying to the credit of the judgment-debtor in the Estates Abolition Tribunal Court, Salem. This petition was rejected on the ground that the Court which passed the decree. District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri, had not transmitted the decree to the Court of the District Munsif of Hosur, wherein it was sought to be executed. The decree-holder appealed.The learned Additional District Judge, relying upon...
Tag this Judgment!G.S.T. Shaik Mohideen Sahib Vs. the State Wakf Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ144
M. Natesan, J. 1. This second appeal has been preferred by the second plaintiff in a suit for declaration that the plaint Darga, known as the Hazarath Gnaniar Sheikh Mohideen Maluk Mudaliar Sahib Oliyullah Darga of Kottar, Vadiweeswaram Village, Agastheswaram taluk, Kanyakumari district, was a private family Darga, and should not have been included in the list of wakfs in the Madras State, under Section 5 of the Muslim Wakfs Act, 1954. The first plaintiff in the suit claims to be Sajjadhanishin of the Darga and the second plaintiff is the Secretary of the Darga. The Madras State Wakf Board is the party defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, accepted the plaintiff's case that the dedication of the Darga and its properties is for the upkeep of the tomb of a private person and that, in the circumstances, there cannot be a valid wakf under the Mohammedan Law. It was observed that the Darga is a family Darga, and that the dedication, even assuming that it ...
Tag this Judgment!isakki Ammal Thayammai Ammal Vs. Papammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad61
(1) This second appeal by the plaintiff raises a short but not an easy question in the construction of a deed. The Courts below have differed in their views. Briefly stated the point for decision is whether a purported deed of settlement is a composite instrument being a deed of settlement in respect of specified properties and a testamentary document in relation to the remaining properties and a testamentary document in relation to the remaining properties of the settlor. The deed in question was executed by Arunachalam Pillai, a Hindu Vellala, residing at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli Dt, on 21-4-1927, as a marriage settlement on the eve of his third marriage. The preamble to the document sets out the circumstances under which the document was executed. His first wife was dead and had left a daughter Isakki who had been married away. He had taken a second wife by name Meenakshi about 8 years previously; but she had no issue and it is in these circumstances he sought the hand of the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Arunchalam Pillal (V.P.) Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ776Mad
Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner, who is the permanent karnam of Naranapuram village in Sankarankoil taluk, filed this petition to quash the order of suspension of five years passed by the Revenne Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti, in R.O.C. No. B. 684/63, dated 15 Fabruary 1963, and that of the District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli. in R.O.C. No. Q. 1 17872/63G, dated 19 August 1963. on the ground that he failed to attend the kist centres conducted by the District Ravenue Officer, Tirunelveli, on 28 November 1962 and 26 December 1962. at Sivagiri camp, that he attacked his superior officers in his written explanation to the tahsildar, Sankarankoil, dated 12 December 1962. and that he is a nonresident in the duty village and he is residing at Vasudevanaliur village.2. The gravamen of the charge of the petitioner seems to be that he was not given a reasonable opportunity in the conduct of the enquiry conducted by the Ravenue Divisional Officer, Kovilpatti.3. The facts in the instant case re...
Tag this Judgment!Sriraman (N.) and ors. Vs. Ganesa Engineering Works, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ793Mad
Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes. Madras, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1205 of 1962 in P.W.A. No. 10 of 1962. The petitioners (23 in number) applied to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for awarding to them wages which they alleged bad bean wrongfully deducted. The Additional Commissioner rejected the petitioners' claim and thereupon the matter was taken on appeal to the Court of Small Causes, as provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Small Causes Court dismissed the appeal for default and the Miscellaneous Petition No. 1205 of 1962 was filed by the petitioners to restore their appeal to the file. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes was of opinion that he had no power to set aside the order of dismissal but that if he had the power, he would consider this as a case where the dismissal ought to be set ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sriraman and ors. Vs. Sri Ganesa Engineering Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ63
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in M.P. No. 1205 of 1962 in P.W.A. No. 10 of 1962. The petitioners (23 in number) applied to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act for awarding to them wages which they alleged had been wrongfully deducted. The Additional Commissioner rejected the petitioners' claim and thereupon the matter was taken on appeal to the Court of Small Causes, as provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. The Small Cause Court dismissed the appeal for default and the M.P. No. 1205 of 1962 was filed by the petitioners to restore their appeal to file. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, was of opinion that he had no power to set aside the order of dismissal but that if he had the power, he would consider this as a case where the dismissal ought to be set aside. On the first poin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »