Chennai Court March 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.
K. Nallandram Pillai Vs. M.S. Natesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ347
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition has been filed by one of the applicants to the post of a Village Headman at Pothanur Village for the issue of a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records from the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Madras, and to quash the order appointing the first respondent as the Village Headman.2. Sri V. Marutha Pillai, permanent Village Headman of Pothanur Village, died on 23rd November, 1961. Applications were called for the post and the petitioner, Nallandram Pillai, one Natesan, the first respondent herein and Manivacagam applied. In this writ petition we are not concerned with Manivacahagam. Therefore, he may be left out of account. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his order, dated 22nd July, 1962, found that the petitioner was the best qualified candidate for the post. He found that the petitioner was worth Rs. 2,74,400 whereas the first respondent was worth only Rs. 77,000 and as a man of property, he should be selected for the post and a...
V. S. Arulanandam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR305(Mad)
As a non-resident married individual the assessee was charged to income-tax for the assessment year 1954-55, the previous year ending on April 12, 1954, on a total income arising to him within the taxable territory. On the ground that a sum of Rs. 4,805 credited to his wife as interest due to her on certain deposits made by her with a firm called P. P.M. Thangiah Nadar at Tuticorin was not disclosed by the assessee, the assessment was reopened under section 34 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the amount become final and is no longer in question. Proceedings under section 28 (1) (c) against the assessee followed with the result a penalty of Rs. 1,000 was levied. Various objections were raised by the assessee which were all overruled in the first instance as well as in the further appeals. Pursuant to the directions of this court, a statement of the case has been submitted to us under section 66 (2) on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the...
D. Senthivelu Vs. the Southern Railway Represented by the General Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ297
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to quash the Office Order No. 40, dated 19th January, 1963 passed by the respondent, the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Engineer (Class II Service) to the post of Head Draftsman (Class III service).2. The petitioner joined service in the Southern Railway as a Junior Draftsman on 22nd November, 1948. In 1951, he was transferred to Integral Coach Factory, Madras, as a Senior Draftsman and in 1956 he was promoted as Head Draftsman. In the year 1959, he was selected as Assistant Engineer, by a duly constituted Selection Board, and was placed sixth in rank, and by an order dated 12th January, 1960, he was informed that he was promoted to officiate in Class II and posted as Officiating Assistant Engineer, Bridges. Though the said promotion was purely temporary and ad hoc, it had the personal sanction of the General Manager, as seen from the order its...
Dr. P.S. Nair and ors. Vs. the State of Madras by the Collector of the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ331
ORDERP. Rammakrishnan, J.1. These three petitions for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were heard together because the principal point arising for decision is common. The common question relates to the vires of provision in the rules framed under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act (Madras Act XXVII of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the levy of penalty for the contravention of a permit to cut trees in an area declared to be a forest under the aforesaid Act.2. The facts of the case, W.P. No. 1489 of 1964 are typical of the other two cases and I shall refer to them in the first instance. The petitioner is a lessee of a private forest in the Gudalur taluk of the Nilgiris District and the forest was notified under Section 1(3) of the Act. He applied to the District Collector under Rule 5 of the rules framed under Section 10 of the Act for a permit to fell trees on an area of 50 acres for the purpose of raising a cof...
P.P. Lakshminarayana Upadhyaya Vs. the Premier Bank of India Ltd., (In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ333
ORDERP. Kunhamed Kutti, J.1. This application by way of appeal is against the order of the learned Master dismissing the appellant's Application No. 82 of 1965 for leave to institute the suit in forma pauperis.2. The learned Master has found in his order that the applicant has no cause of action for instituting the suit and that the reason given by the applicant that he had not seen the promissory note filed with the plaint is not acceptable. The applicant had been cross-examined before the learned Master at great length. His evidence and the arguments urged by him were considered by the Master and the conclusions come to by the learned Master are thus set cut by him:Thus the evidence tendered by the petitioner is prima facie unacceptable and his evidence is not at all believable. Thus his version that he came to know about the alleged fraud only in 1963, cannot be believed, and I find that he had knowledge of it if there be fraud even in 1955. Thus the present suit is clearly barred b...
P. Thirumurthi Chettiar Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad91; [1968]21STC489(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The petitioner, who is carrying on business in cotton in Tiruppui filed this writ petition to quash an order dated 16-1-1963 refusing refund of tax paid by him and another order dated 7-7-1964, passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting his application for revision preferred against the order dated 16-1-1963. It is just necessary to state a few facts before I dispose of this writ petition.2. The matter that led to the filing of this writ petition was an application filed by the petitioner for refund of sales-tax paid by him under the Madras General Sales Tax Act- As the petitioner was carrying on business in cotton, he was assessed under the local Act and the point for levy of sales tax is the last purchase if it is within the State. As cotton is declared goods under the Central Sales Tax Act. If the petitioner sells his cotton outside the State, he will again be assessed. In order to avoid injustice, Section 4 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act provided by a provi...
Project Engineers Private Limited Vs. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas566(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The above petition is under Section 19 of the Companies Act read with the relevant rules of the Companies Court Rules, 1959, for excusing the delay in filing the certified copy of the order of this court dated September 1, 1966, made in Company Petition No. 13 of 1966 together with the enclosures as required under law with the Registrar of Companies. The prayer in the judge's summons indicates that the application is under Section 18(4) of the Act as well. Company Petition No. 13 of 1966 itself was one for amendment of its memorandum by changing the registered office of the petitioner-company from one State to another State. This was ordered by this court by its order dated September 1, 1966. Under Section 18(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, if the alteration of the memorandum involves a transfer of the registered office from one State to another, a certified copy of the order confirming the alteration shall be filed by the company with the Registrar of each of the ...
Coimbatore District Textile Mills Staff Union (by Secretary) Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: (1967)IILLJ407Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the coimbatore District Textile Mills Staff Union for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Madras to refer the dispute In regard to clerical staff to an Industrial tribunal.2. One Arogyaswaml was employed as a cashier In Vijayeswari Textiles, Ltd., Puliampatti, Pollachi. Out of 23 employees in the mills four were members of the petitioner-union. Arogyaswami in September 1964 was drawing a salary of Ra. 345 as cashier-cum-clerk. On 21 September 1964 the management dismissed Arogyaswami paying him a month's salary In lieu of notice. In the notice it was stated that on checking of accounts there were certain shortages and that Arogyaswami was the cause of such shortages. It was farther stated that Arogyaswami confessed having embezzled moneys and subsequently made good the embezzled moneys and gave Information regarding the balance which he had claimed to have loaned to other staff members. It was alleged that Arogyaswam...
Chepparai Transports (Private) Ltd. Vs. Mubarak Transport Service and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ361
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, connected with the order made in Appeal No. 179 of 1966, dated 29th July, 1966, allowing the 1st respondent a shuttle trip one up and one down between Manimuthar and Tirunelveli Junction and quash the same.2. M/s. Chapparai Transports Company, Ltd. was operating a bus from Nanguneri to Manimuthar (via) Chermadevi. On 8th October, 1964, it applied to the Regional Transport Authority to extend the route Nanguneri to Manimuthar so as to do independent shuttle trips between Chermadevi and Tirunelveli Junction (via) Kallur. The application was notified under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and petitioner submitted representations. The Regional Transport Authority considered the application and rejected it by its order, dated 30th December, 1965. On the date of the order of the Regional Transport Authority, the permit had bee...
A. E. M. Usoof Vs. Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1967
Reported in: [1968]67ITR49(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - These writ petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of appropriate writs. Writ Petition No. 1399 of 1963 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs. Writ Petition No. 1399 of 1963 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of attachment dated August 31, 1963, issued by the second respondent. Writ Petition No. 1400 of 1963 is a similar writ to quash the order of attachment dated September 29, 1963, issued by the second respondent. Writ Petition No. 1401 of 1963 is for the issue of a writ of cetiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the proclamation of sale dated October 14, 1963, issued by the second respondent. The first respondent in all these cases is the Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin.The facts in these petitions are not in dispute. The petitioner in the status of a 'resident and ordinarily resident' was subject to tax of about Rs. 12,36,537 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »