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.
Nellal Cotton Mills Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR66(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - There are two petitions before us under article 226 of the Constitution, the one for direction forbidding the 1st Income-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, from reopening the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1959-60, and the other to quash an order which the Income-tax Officer made subsequently reopening the earlier assessment. The Income-tax Officer made that order because this court declined to make any interim order pending the first writ petition, but permitted him to proceed with reassessment.The assessee, who is the petitioner, is a registered partnership carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of earn in Tirunelveli town. For the assessment year 1959-60 the firm filed a return showing a net loss of Rs. 90,958, the accounting year therefor having ended on December 31, 1958. This result was arrived at after deducting depreciation and development rebate. The development rebate as claimed was allowed. It appears the Assistant Accountant-General in...
Presidency Talkies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad87; [1968(17)FLR360]; (1969)ILLJ90Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This appeal has been instituted by Messrs. Presidency Talkies (Pvt) Ltd., Proprietors of Paragon Talkies, Madras, from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in W. P. 815 of 1962, declining to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Labour Court in respect of one R. Venugopal, an employee of the petitioner firm and the main respondent.2. The facts are quite simple, and may be briefly referred to, at the outset. The employee (R. Venugopal) was suspended on 19-6-1961 upon the main charge that he exhibited an advertisement slide without the permission of the management. It will be easily appreciated that advetisement slides are exhibited during a performance as a consequence of contracts between the advertising firms and the management; the management derives a revenue from such exhibition of slides, which may be considerable. Hence, if a slide, the exhibition of which is not authorised by the management, is deliberately exhibited by an employee during a p...
Presidency Talkies Private Limited, Proprietor of Paragon Talkies Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ318
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This appeal has been instituted by Messrs. Presidency Talkies (Private) Ltd., Proprietors of Paragon Talkies, Madras, from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in W.P. No. 815 of 1962, declining to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Labour Court in respect of one R. Venugopal, an employee of the petitioner-firm and the main respondent.2. The facts are quite simple, and may be briefly referred to at the outset. The employee (R. Venugopal) was suspended on 19th June, 1961, upon the main charge that he exhibited an advertisement slide without the permission of the management. It will be easily appreciated that advertisement slides are exhibited during a performance as a consequence of contracts between the advertising firms and the management; the management derives a revenue from such exhibition of slides, which may be considerable. Hence, if a slide, the exhibition of which is not authorised by the management, is deliberately exhibited by an emplo...
Kaluvaroya Pillai and ors. Vs. Ganesa Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad248
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The above batch of civil miscellaneous appeals are against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ra-manathapuram in A. S. 151 of 1963, 27 of 1959 and 29 to 32 of 1959, whereunder he modified the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, in the Original suits tried by the latter, and remanded the same on a particular aspect. The appeals before the lower Appellate Court were all connected and filed by the appellants against the respondents in those civil miscellaneous appeals. In all the suits the respondents claimed that the suit lands were pannai lands and therefore they had domain over the same and that the appellants are bound to recognise such right in them as iruwaram-dars and liable to pay rent therefor. Both the Courts below found concurrently that the lands situate in the village of Karun-gulam is a pre-settlement dharmasanam grant which were iruwaram pannai lands of the respondents. On an examination of the oral and documentary evidence, th...
Amir Jan Vs. Shaik Sulaiman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ559
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellant in this case is the plaintiff. The suit relates to a wakf property. The wakf was created by one Shaik Hussain under a document, Exhibit A-1 dated 19th February, 1904. Under this document, Shaik Hussain provided that his three sons Sheik Ismail, Mohamed Hussain and Abdul Gafoor were to be joint trustees after him. Defendants 4 and 5 are the sons of Sheik Ismail and Mohammed Hussain respectively and the plaintiff is the son of Abdul Gafoor. The fourth defendant executed two possessory mortgages, Exhibits B-9 and B-32 to one Subramaniam over the property. This Subramaniam assigned the othi to one Palavesa, who in turn assigned it to the first defendant. The first defendant created a othi of his othi right in favour of one Burhan Ali, who has assigned it under Exhibit B-33 to the second defendant, who is first defendant's wife. The third defendant is a vendee from the fourth and fifth defendants of the wakf property under Exhibit B-7 dated 14th April, 19...
Sri Nagama Naicker and anr. Vs. Ponnuchinnayyan, Alleged Adopted Son o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1967
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ437
M. Natesan, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 have preferred this second appeal from the concurrent decision of the Courts below giving the plaintiff a decree for partition and separate possession of a 5/8th share in the suit properties.2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Chitrasenan Naicker, who died in May 1953, leaving behind him three widows, defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, and another Pappammal, who died in 1959 after the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the said Chitrasenan Naicker and in that right claimed partition and possession of his share in the properties. In the Courts below, the adoption was disputed. But it has been established by unimpeachable evidence and corroborated by a registered deed of adoption Exhibit A-14, dated 19th July, 1945. The plaint alleged that in collusion with the two surviving widows defendants 1 and 2, who had become absolute owners of their respective shares in the. suit properties under the Hindu Succession Ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›