Chennai Court September 1966 Judgments
S. Meikole Udayar Vs. S.P. Periasami Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad449
Veeraswami, J.(1) This appeal by the plaintiff is from a decree of the subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dismissing the suit against the respondents for rendition of accounts. His case was that he entered into a contract with the Highways for construction of Kodai kanal-Moonar road and commenced work on 25-1-1965. He took the respondents (defendants) as partners in the single venture on the understanding that it should come to an end at the conclusion of the works contract with the Highways and the passing of the final bills relating thereto. The terms of the partnership were reduced to writing in a deed dated 18th May 1955 tense was styled as 'Michael Udayar and Co'. Each of the partners to this firm was to contribute a share capital of Rs.10,000 and that if further capital was necessary, they should contribute the same in equal shares by raising loans. They were to share the profits of the firm equally. The business of the partnership was to be managed and conducted by the respondents s...
Tag this Judgment!Swami Motor Transports (P.) Ltd. Vs. Murugan Transports and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1966
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ446
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This proceeding by Messrs. Swami Motor Transport (P.) Ltd., for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the respective orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Thanjavur, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, granting a Variation of the route from Nagarapatti to Tirukattupalli (via) Thanjavur, etc., involves two related questions of law, that are of some interest and importance. A brief statement of certain essential facts and dates will suffice, as constituting the background in which the problems have to be viewed.2. In May, 1961 Government passed, an order (G.O. Ms. No. 1486) sanctioning the variation, or directing it as in the public interest. Originally, a certain A.P, Subbu Reddiar applied for this variation, and there was a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 774 and 775 of 1961, directing the Regional Transport Authority to deal with the application for variation, ignoring the Government order or administrative fiat. Messrs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1966
Reported in: (1966)IILLJ896Mad
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The management of Express Newspapers, Ltd., have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras (respondent 1), dated 24 May 1963, setting aside the order of termination of the services of M. Neelakantan (respondent 2) passed by the management on 7 December 1962.2. The facts leading to this petition lie In a narrow compass. In 1959, there was a strike in the Madras office of the newspaper. Thereupon, the management declared a closure of their business, and also paid the staff their dues up to that date. Respondent 2 who was an employee of the newspaper office was one among them. Sometime thereafter, respondent 2 volunteered his Services and the management then entertained him as a temporary employee to assist the skeleton staff-which was then functioning. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, respondent 2 was continued in various dep...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Nambisan (P.) and ors. Vs. Madras State Electricity Board (by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1966
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ252Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. In all these throe writ petitions the main question that is raised is whether the order of the Madras State Electricity Board directing the petitioners to retire at the age of 55 is Illegal and unsustainable in law. As the main question involved in all these three petitions is the same, these three writ petitions may be dealt with together.2. The Madras State Electricity Board is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act of 1948 (Central Act) and was incorporated with effect from 1 July 1957. The Madras State Electricity Board is empowered to frame regulations in regard to the duties of officers and servants of the Board and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service by virtue of Section 79(c) of the Act. The Board has not framed any regulations, but by way of transitory regulations, it directed that the provisions of Fundamental Rules which govern the service conditions in regard to certain matters of Government...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. S.A. Jabbar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad335; 1967CriLJ1339; (1966)IILLJ888Mad
ORDER(1) This appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the acquittal of the accused in S. T. R. No. 248 of 1964 by the Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem. In view of the limited scope of the enquiry before me, which is confined to a specific legal point, and in view of the circumstances that the other facts are admitted, it is sufficient to refer to the facts very briefly.The accused Jabbur is the proprietor of Koganapuram Transports, Salem. On palaniappan who was working as a cleaner in the said company was dismissed from service. On the representation made by the Motor Workers Union, the State Government made a reference to the Labour court at Coimbatore under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, for a determination of as to whether the dismissal of Palaniappan by the accused's company was proper. The Labour Court passed an award, holding that the dismissal was improper, and directing the reinstatement of Palaniappan. Repeated attempts were made first of all b...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Guruvammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1966
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ397Mad
Alagiriswami, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 1681 of 1963 is filed under 3. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act to revise the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madura in Small Cause Suit No. 314 of 1961. Civil Revision Petition No. 1682 of 1963 la a similar petition In respect of the decree and Judgment in Small Cause Suit No. 315 of 1961. The defendant Is the petitioner In both the petitions. The plaintiffs In the two suits were two workers whose services were dispensed with by the defendant, the Madura Mills Company, Ltd. The plaintiffs filed the suits, claiming that they were entitled to retrenchment benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The defence In effect was that the plaintiffs in both the suits were not retrenched, but that their services were dispensed with on the ground of ill-health and, therefore. Section 2(F) would not apply. It was also contended by the defendant that the proper remedy for the plaintiffs in both the sui...
Tag this Judgment!R. Durairaju Vs. S. Palaniappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad421
(1) This petition is to revise an order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, made under S. 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960. The respondent who is the landlord applied for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the latter defaulted in payment of rents and that in any cases the former required the premises bona fide for his own occupation. The first ground, which has been decided in favour of the petitioner, is no longer in issue. On the alternative ground, the respondent succeeded before the District Judge who reversed the order of the appellate court and restored that of the Rent Controller. The District Judge considered that on the proved faces the proper conclusion to arrive at was that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his own occupation. The proved facts were that the landlord's family was large, he had three sons and two grown up daughters: one of the sons was married and other two sons and two daughters were of marriageable age. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Madurai Mills Co., Ltd., Madurai by Its Managing Director Vs. Guru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ287
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 1681 of 1963 is filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to revise the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in S.C.S. No. 314 of 1961. C.R.P. No. 1682 of 1963 is a similar petition in respect of the decree and judgment in S.C.S. No. 315 of 1961. The defendant is the petitioner in both the petitions. The plaintiffs in the two suits were two workers whose services were dispensed with by the defendant, the Madurai Mills Co., Ltd. The plaintiffs filed the suits claiming that they were entitled to retrenchment benefits under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The defence in effect was that the plaintiffs in both the suits were not retrenched but that their services were dispensed with on the ground of ill-health and therefore Section 25-F would not apply. It was also contended by the defendant that the proper remedy for the plaintiffs in both the suits was to have approached the Lab...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1966
Reported in: AIR1968Mad110
Veeraswami, J. (1) This is a reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Sec. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 of the following question:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the two sums of Rs. 72,515 and Rs. 3,14,100 are assessable to tax under S. 10(5-A) of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922?'We are concerned with the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee was one of the two managing directors of a private limited company by name Textiles Corporation Private Ltd. The other managing director was one P.D. Asher. Out of the total of 20 shares, of Rs. 100 each, the assessee held nine shares and his son one share, the remaining shares being held by P.D. Asher, his wife and cousin. This company was the managing agent of a public limited company called Asher Textiles Ltd. Both these companies have been incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1913. The Public Limited Company had issued 11986 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 eac...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Narasingdas Agarwal and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ306
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These writ petitions raise the same question and can be dealt with together. As the facts in all the petitions are similar, I will deal with W.P. No. 3949 of 1965. This petition is filed for the issue of Writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any action in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 17th February, 1965 bearing Ref. No. S. Nos. 21 and 25 of 1965 issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Vizagapatnam.2. The respondents received information that Seth Durgaprakasa and his close relatives having their main business and residential premises at Tumsar and Nagpur had considerable quantity of hoarded gold, which had not been declared by them under the Gold Control Rules. Searches were conducted on 19th and 20th August, 1963, in the premises of the petitioners and several documents were seized. According to the respondents, the documents indicated that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Custom...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »