Chennai Court June 1967 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Regional Director (Food) S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ199
M. Natesan, J. 1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree, of this Court under its Original Jurisdiction dismissing the suit, C.S. No. 97 of 1956. The Union of India instituted the suit, originally against four defendants, claiming a sum of Rs. 66,491-11-5 on account of loss and damage in respect of a consignment of British refined Granulated Sugar consisting of 90,799 bags, each bag weighing two cwt., the total weight being T. 9,097-18-0-0 loaded at the Port of London and deliverable at the Port of Madras, J.V. Drake & Company the third defendant Were the shippers and the Maritime Shipping and Trading Company Limited the owners of the ship, the S. S. ' Indore ' which carried the cargo. The first defendant in the suit chartered the ship on the 4th April, 1955 (Exhibit D-1) is the charter party) specifically for a full complete cargo of refined sugar in bags not exceeding 9,450 long tons net nor less than 9,000 long tons net for carriage to Madras. On the very day the third defen...
Tag this Judgment!V. Solamalayan Poojari (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ105
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner attacks the finding of the first, respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in Appeal No. 37 of 1962 filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, the second respondent in O.A. No. 5 of 1961 and prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the abovesaid order.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration of this writ petition are the following:The petitioner was appointed by the Executive Officer of the Sri Kallalagar Koil Devasthanam, Melur Taluk, Madurai district, respondent No. 10, as poojari in one of the temples attached to the Devasthanam, on 13th June, 1941. Respondents 3 to 8 filed a claim under Section 63(e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959) before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments stating that they were the persons who by hereditary right became e...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arjunan Vs. E. Kanan, Extension Officer, Nemili Panchayat Union and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ427
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition Is filed by a member of the Paranji Panchayat in North Arcot for the issue of a writ of quo warranto directing the 2nd Respondent to show cause under what authority he was performing the functions of the President of the Panchayat.2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Paranji Panchayat in March, 1965. In April, 1966 the President of the Panchayat served a notice on the petitioner informing him that he was disqualified to be a member. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer and on 10th May, 1966 the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the petitioner to move the concerned authority, if he felt aggrieved about the action of the President. It is stated by the petitioner that the Panchayat to whom he applied restored him and that subsequently he was attending the panchayat meetings and signing the Minutes Book of the Panchayat. While so, a notice dated 17th October, 1966 was served on the petitioner on 21st October, 1966 to ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sengodan and Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1967
Reported in: [1967]20STC415(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner who is the assessee was a dealer in groundnut oil at Namakkal. For the year 1958-59 he claimed rebate in respect of a turnover of Rs. 43,433 which he was entitled to under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder. But the assessing authority disallowed the rebate on the ground that the petitioner delayed submission of returns in Form A-9 for the months of August and September, 1958, and March, 1959. The delay was one day in one case and two days in the two other cases of monthly returns. But the tax referable to these months was paid within the prescribed time. On this ground the Appellate Assistant Commissioner made the following direction :-As the delay is only very short the appellants should apply to the Commercial Tax Officer of the district who is competent to condone delays under Rule 18 within ten days of the receipt of this order. On such condonation of the delay the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer will further grant reb...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of United Bleachers (Private), Ltd. (Represented by Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)ILLJ529Mad
Kailasam, J. 1. Both the petitions am filed against the order of the labour court, Coimbatore, in Industrial Dispute No. 41 of 1961 dated 23 June 1965. Writ Petition No. 3533 of 1965 is by the workmen employed in the United Bleachers (Private), Ltd., represented by the secretary, Coimbatore District Textile Workers' Union, against that portion of the order which failed to grant the relief of reinstatement of the worker P. Krishnan. Writ Petition No. 677 of 1966 is by the management of the United Bleachers (Private), Ltd. against the order of the labour court, in so far as it found that the delay in resorting to the dispute by the workmen was justified and that the worker, P. Kriahnan, would be entitled to the relief It had ordered. The two writ petitions may be dealt with together. 2. P. Krishnan, who was working as the supervisor, grade A, in the stitching section, was suspended in August 1957 and was dismissed on 8 October 1957. A dispute Industrial Dispute No. 1 of 1958 was raised, ...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen employed in the United Bleachers Private Ltd., by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ99
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Both the petitions are filed against the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 41 of 1961, dated 22nd June, 1966. W.P. No. 3533 of 1965 is by the workmen employed in the United Bleachers (P.), Ltd., represented by the Secretary, Coimbatore District Textile Workers' Union, against that portion, of the order which failed to grant the relief of reinstatement of the worker P. Krishnan. W.P. No. 677 of 1966 is by the management of the United Bleachers (P.), Ltd. against the order of the Labour Court, in so far as it found that the delay in resorting to the dispute by the workmen was justified and that the worker, P. Krishnan, would be entitled to the relief it had ordered. The two writ petitions may be dealt with together.2. P. Krishnan, who was working as the Supervisor, Grade A, in the Stitching Section was suspended in August, 1957, and was dismissed on 8th October, 1957. A dispute I.D. No. 1 of 1958 was raised, and the Labour Court, Coimbatore, by i...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajangam Ayyar Vs. Natesa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad431; (1968)2MLJ282
1. This second appeal is against the judgment on appeal of the learned District Judge of Kumbakonam in A. S. 69 of 1962 against the order of the District Munsif, Valangiman at Kumbakonam in I. A. 1171 of 1961 in O. S. No. 35 of 1953. The plaintiff in O. S. 35 of 1953 is the appellant. O. S. 35 of 1953 was a suit for partition and possession of the plaintiff's share of the suit properties. Along with the prayer for partition and possession of his share, the plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits. The preliminary decree provided not merely for partition and possession of the plaintiff's share but also for the ascertainment of mesne profits and it being provided for in the final decree. It appears that while the petition for passing the final decree was pending, the appellant filed an application for ascertainment of mesne profits. The application was returned a number of times by the court raising the question as to how a petition for ascertainment of mesne profits could be filed before...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaswamy Pillai Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC224(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The short point in this case is whether a Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under Section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, has jurisdiction to make an order levying penalty for the first time on the assessee where the assessing authority in its original order of assessment failed to make any observation on penalty. It is not in dispute that the assessing authority added Rs. 30,879.64 to the turnover reported, and that the turnover so added had been suppressed, but was discovered by means of certain anamath slips, the figures in which found no place in the assessee's account books. In those circumstances, in its provisional notice to assess, the assessing authority called upon the assessee to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 1,026 should not be levied ; but in the final assessment, apparently after applying its mind to the objections filed by the assessee, it decided not to levy any penalty. That apparently was its conclusion though it found no ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vs. Chacko V. State of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR801(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The petition relates to the assessment year 1959-60 under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The assessee, who is the petitioner, claimed to deduct Rs. 13,797.55 as a sum paid to financiers in lieu of interest, which was disallowed by the revenue as well as the Tribunal. The assessee accordingly has moved this court in revision and the following question arise for consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 13,797.55 being the sum paid to financiers in lieu of interest by the petitioner is valid in law and(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 4,355 out of cultivation and management expenses claimed by the petitioner is justified in law ?'So far as the second question is concerned, we may straightway answer it in the negative and against the assessee. The disallowance is based on the merits of the claim and scarcely any question of law arise...
Tag this Judgment!N. Arunachalam Vs. Lt. Colonel V. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ435
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this Civil Revision case two questions have been argued: - (i) Whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable at all in the High Court, and (2) Whether the order does satisfy the requirements of Rule 18(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1961. The landlord filed an application under Section 14 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The application was posted for hearing on 13th June, 1966. As the landlord was absent, it was dismissed. On an affidavit sworn to by the Advocate for the landlord filed in support of an application to restore the original Rent Control Petition and after hearing the parties, the Rent Controller set aside the ek parte order.2. Mr. G.N. Chari, learned Counsel for the petitioner tenant before me contends that the order suffers by two infirmities, namely, that the Rent Controller did not give any finding whether sufficient cause has been shown by the landlord for restoration of the appli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »