Chennai Court December 1967 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.
The Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ379
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in Claim Petition No. 177 of 1966 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, and to quash the order dated 16th July, 1966 and made therein.2. The first respondent was working as a senior salesman in the above Society at Madurai. He retired from service on 18th February, 1965, as he had attained the age of superannuating. On 22nd March, 1965, he applied to the Society for gratuity pay and for refund of the security deposit of Rs. 250. The Society paid the first respondent 15 months' basic pay on 20th January, 1966. The first respondent again applied on 29th January, 1966 for the grant of dearness allowance. On 2nd February, 1966, the Society rejected the claim of the first respondent for dearness allowance. The first respondent, thereafter, filed a petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the...
K.M. Mohammed Ghouse and Co. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ229
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This petition is filed by a firm carrying on export and import business at Nagapattinam for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 23rd November, 1965 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, New Delhi, quashing the said order, in Customs Appeal No. 100/65 confirming the order of confiscation of the boat by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. For the purpose of facilitating transport and loading of its export cargo in ships Which call at Nagapattinam Port and which are usually anchored about 4 miles from the shore, the petitioner was owning a boat. The boat bears Registration No. 12 in the Nagapattinam Port Office. On 29th June, 1963 the petitioner's boat was taken by Tindal Natarajan With the cargo for being loaded into ' S.S. State of Madras '. It is stated that evening the petitioner received information from the Central Excise Office that boat No. 12 belonging to the petitioner-f...
V.S. Raju Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Board of Revenue ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ183
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by one V.S. Raju Naidu of Vadapatti Village, Coimbatore district, for the issue of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following circumstances. According to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has been running a rice mill under the name and style of 'Venkatesa Rice Mill'' under licence No. 3/54 granted by the Vedapatti Panchayat by its resolution passed on 12th September, 1954. The District Health Officer, Coimbatore, had inspected the site and building and given approval to them by order passed on 6th September, 1954. The petitioner also entered into an agreement with the Madras Electricity Board for consumption of electricity for a period of ten years in his mill which is worked by a huller equipped with a 7.5 H.P. electric motor. He has been paying the minimum charges to the Electricity Board. The Madras Rice Mills Licencing Order, 1955, was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 26th Januar...
Southern Agencies Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]69ITR894(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - Loyal Textile Mills Limited, an incorporated limited liability company, had a subscribed capital consisting of 15,000 preference shares, 63,142 ordinary shares and 40,000 deferred shares. Each share was of the face value of Rs. 5. The deferred shares would be entitled t dividend only after payment of the prescribed rate of dividend to preference shares. On April 9, 1946, the assessee, which was also a company incorporated in February, 1946, became the managing agents of Loyal Textile Mills under an agreement for the purpose entered into on April 17, 1946. During the year ended April 30, 1947, the assessee acquired 320 ordinary shares and 250 preference shares of Loyal Textile Mills. On October 10, 1947, the assessee made a further acquisition of 39,000 deferred shares for a total consideration of Rs. 39,000. In 1954, the assessee agreed to make over its managing agency to Karumuthu Thiagaraja Chettiar in terms of a letter dated September 16, 1954, addressed by A.V. Thom...
Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras Vs. L. K. G. Private L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1967
Reported in: [1969]71ITR370(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 8,346 as a deduction and it is the correctness of this view that is canvassed by the State in the tax case. We are satisfied that the Tribunal is correct. The expenditure related to lopping of excess growth of the shade trees in the plantation in order to that there may be proper shade and at the same time enough sunlight. The Tribunal rightly held that such expenditure was obviously in connection with the maintenance of shade trees in proper condition to see that maximum benefit is obtained from such shade trees. It may be, as it is contended for the State, that once the branches are cut, they are fit for sale and may actually be sold. Even then, it will be a question whether the receipt by sale will be agricultural income or would be in the nature of a capital. That does not fall to be decided at the moment. It is enough to say that it is to earn agricultural income, and in the process of agricultural operation, the expenditure has be...
C.S. Peeran Sahib Vs. the State Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad350
Venkatadri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the proceedings dated 9-2-1959 and 26-3-1959, of the respondent, State Wakf Board, requiring the appellant to have the suit Durga and its properties registered, to (submit?) accounts, udgets and returns and threatening prosecution and imposition of penalties otherwise than the Wakf Act are void, illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Both the courts below have held that the Wakf Board has got jurisdiction to ask the appellant to have the suit Durga registered and to send the accounts and budgets. Hence the second appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff. It is necessary to state a few facts that led to the filing of the suit.3. It is common case that the properties set out in the plaint and situate at Killai, Chidambaram Taluk, were originally granted by the Nawab to the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. There were other disputes with which we are not concerned now. Finally, a scheme was ...
Madras Bolts and Nuts (Private), Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ797Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The State of Pondicherry made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the labour court on the following points for adjudication:(1) Whether the closure of the factory, viz., the Madras Bolts and Nuts (Private), Ltd., Muthialpet, Pondicherry, is justified, and(2) if so, to what relief the workers are entitled and to compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money.The concerned notification of the Government states that the workers of the concern were represented by the Indian National Trade Union Congress.2. When the reference came up before the labour court at Pondicherry for adjudication, a preliminary objection was raised by the management that the reference was not valid on account of several reasons, all of which were rejected by the lower Court, except one objection about the capacity of one M.J. Vincent to represent the workers before the labour court. All other points by way of preliminary objection were held against...
Madras Bolts and Nuts (P.) Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ179
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The State of Pondicherry made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court on the following points, for adjudication : (1) Whether the closure of the factory viz., the Madras Bolts and Nuts (Private) Limited, Muthialpet, Pondicherry, is justified and (2) if so, to what relief the workers are entitled to and to compute the relief, if any, awarded in turns of money. The concerned notification of the Government states that the workers of the concern were represented by the INTUC.2. When the reference came up before the Labour Court at Pondicherry for adjudication, a preliminary objection was raised by the Management that the reference was not valid on account of several reasons, all of which were rejected by the lower Court, except one objection about the capacity of one M.J. Vincent to represent the workers before the Labour Court. All other points by way of preliminary objection were held against the Management and in ...
Lingappa Gounder Vs. Palaniswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ181
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, as the Rent Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner's application for appointment of a Commissioner. The petitioner applied in the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent and fair rent was fixed at Rs. 1,100. He filed an appeal to the Rent Tribunal against that order. He applied for the appointment of a Commissioner to make a local inspection. It was contended on behalf of the respondent-landlord that there was no provision in the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, for the appointment of a Commissioner, that the petitioner had applied for local inspection and the Rent Court had made a local inspection on 30th December, 1966, and that there was no necessity to issue a fresh commission when there was already a report with regard to the condition of the property. The Rent Tribunal holding that the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of a Commissioner ...
C.S. Peeran Sahib Vs. the State Wakf Board, Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ365
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the proceedings dated 9th February, 1959, and 26th March 1959, of the respondent State Wakf Board, requiring the appellant to have the suit Durga and its properties registered, to accounts, budgets and returns and threatening prosecution and imposition of penalties otherwise under the Wakf Act are void illegal and without jurisdiction.2. Both the Courts below have held that the Wakf Board has got jurisdiction to ask the appellant to have the suit Durga registered and to send the accounts and budgets. Hence the Second Appeal by the aggrieved plaintiff. It is necessary to state a few facts that led to the filling of the suit.3. It is common case that the properties set out in the plaint and situate at Killai,. Chidambaram Taluk, were originally granted by the Nawab to the predessor -in-title of the appellant. There were other disputes with which we are not concerned now. Finally, a s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »