Chennai Court August 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.
N.K.R.K. Amirtharaj Vs. M.P.S.N. Ramiah Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad374
ORDER(1) At the outset it is not very clear as to the circumstances under which this application is again posted before this Court. The main original petition and even so the application in question had each a chequered career of its own and it would be necessary to set out briefly the attendant facts relating to the above proceedings in order to have a fair conspectus of the material events.(2) O. P. 79 of 1951 was a petition filed under Section 166 of the Indian Companies Act 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act), by certain members of the company known as 'the Nadar Press Ltd. Sivakasi' for winding up the same on the ground, among others, that the directors in management were prejudicially conducting the affairs of the company and they were bent upon enriching themselves by making secret profits, much to the detriment of the shareholders.Whilst this petition was pending O.P. 272 of 1952 was filed by one of the members of the company under Section 153-C of the old Act, inter ...
Kanni Vs. Viswanatha Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad390
(1) Our learned brother Ramaprasada Rao J. has thought it necessary to make a reference to a Bench for a decision upon the following question:--"Whether the Court which entertains the application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis under Order 44, Rule 1 and issues a notice in due form to the opposite party without rejecting it under O. 44, R. 1(2), can rescind its order to entertain the application on the ground that at that stage, it is of the opinion that it ought to be rejected because the decree is not contrary to law, or to some usage having the force of law or is otherwise erroneous or unjust."The point involved appears to be simple and amply covered by authority which, to our minds, is clearly expressed in the decisions to which we shall presently refer. The learned District Judge, against whose order the civil revision petition has been taken, had the pauper appeal petition before him, for admission. He apparently thought it fit to issue notice to the respondent not on the ...
V. Rangaswami Achari Vs. Mandhai Viswa Brahmana Sarvajana Sahaya Nidhi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas730(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Mandhai Viswa Brahmana Sarvajana Sahaya Nidhi Ltd., the 1st respondent, is in voluntary liquidation. The 2nd respondent is the voluntary liquidator appointed by its members at an extraordinary general meeting held on February 26, 1967. The case of the applicant is that the 2nd respondent, who was the secretary, and the 3rd respondent, who was the president-director prior to its voluntary liquidation, mismanaged the Nidhi and did not keep proper accounts for the same, did not furnish the annual returns to the Registrar as required under the Indian Companies Act, and did not hold the annual general body meeting of the Nidhi for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. About the second week of July 1966, the 2nd respondent is said to have filed a return in the prescribed form before the Registrar of Companies stating that a general body meeting of the Nidhi was held on July 11, 1966, and that the balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 wer...
Duraiswami Udayar (P.) Vs. State of Madras (by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ356Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Pudunaduvalur and Nochiam are two villages in Perambalur taluk of the Tiruchirappalli district forming a single group, and they have a common karnam tout different headmen. The headman of Pudunaduvalur died sometime in 1960, and one Duraiswami Udayar was appointed on 7 September 1962 by the Revenue Divisional Officer as the permanent headman of that village. One of the rival applicants before the Revenue Divisional Officer for the appointment was one Kandaswami Udayar. The Revenue Divisional Officer preferred Duraiswami Udayar for the appointment overlooking the claim3 of Kandaswami Udayar. Kandaewami Udayar appealed to the District Revenue Officer. That officer considered that Duraiswami Udayar, the appointee of the Revenue Divisional Officer, was closely related to the village headman of Nochiam, who had married the two sisters of Duraiswami Udayar. Board's Standing Order 155(12)(ii) states that in areas to which the Act does not apply (Hereditary Village O...
S. Krishna Reddiar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ121
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are the owners of lands in R.S. No. 561/5 in Poosaripalayam, hamlet of V. Pudhur village in Villupuram Taluk. The State of Madras represented by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Harijan Welfare), is the respondent. A notification under Section 4 (1), relating to the acquisition of the above lands under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 2nd September, 1964, in the Fort .St. George Gazette. Since the matter was one of urgency, it was also indicated in the notification that the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act would be dispensed with. It was made clear in the counter affidavit supplied by the Government in this Writ Petition that the urgency in the present case arose because the existing Harijan colony consists of 47 families, that out of them 16 families were houseless, that there are 21 families who lived in low lying fields subject to inundation during rainy season, and ...
P. Duraiswami Udayar Vs. State of Madras by Secretary to Government, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ305
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. Pudunaduvalur and Nochiam are two villages in Perambalur Taluk of the Tiruchirapalli district forming a single group and they have a common karnam but different headmen. The headman of Pudunaduvalur died sometime in 1960, and one Duraiswami Udayar was appointed on 7th September, 1962 by the Revenue Divisional Officer as the permanent headman of that village. One of the rival applicants before the Revenue Divisional Officer for the appointment was one Kandaswami Udayar. The Revenue Divisional Officer preferred Duraiswami Udayar for the appointment overlooking the claims of Kandaswami Udayar. Kandaswami Udayar appealed to the District Revenue Officer. That officer considered that Duraiswami Udayar, the appointee of the Revenue Divisional Officer,, was closely related to the village headman of Nochiam, who had married the two sisters of Duraiswami Udayar. Board's Standing Order 155 (12) (ii) states that in areas to which the Act does not apply (Hereditary Villag...
K.C.P. Ltd., Central Workshop Vs. K.C.P. Employees' Association (by Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ416Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the management of K.C.P. Ltd., Central Workshop, Tiruvottipur, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the industrial tribunal, Madras, in Industrial Dispute No. 57 of 1966 and to quash the award dated 16 February 1967 and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 22 March 1967.2. The petitioner-company is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In the year 1943, the company purchased a sugar factory at Vayyurn as a going concern. In 1955, the company started an engineering workshop known as the Central Workshop at Tiruvottiyur. In 1958, the company commissioned a cement factory at Macherla known as the Ramakrishna Cement Factory. According to the petitioner, the three undertakings of the company were always treated as different entities. The workmen of the three suits were treated separately regarding the terms and conditions of service, the scales of pay, payment of bonus an...
P.M. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC72(Mad)
ORDER1. The question in this case is whether the turnover consisted of the aggregate of labour charges and the cost of materials in printing work or of outright sales of finished commodity. The finding of the Tribunal is that what was sold was only a finished product. The assessee relied on certain bills which showed the cost of materials and labour charges. The Tribunal, however, finds that the separate entries were only a make-believe apportionment for the purpose of sales tax.2. It is strenuously argued before us that the factual finding should not be accepted, and that even if accepted on the basis that what was supplied was only a finished product, the earlier decisions of this Court show that the consideration for the apportioned transaction could be dissected as for the cost of materials and for labour charges. So far as the factual aspect is concerned, even assuming that it is not a pure question of fact but a mixed one, we are not satisfied that the Tribunal went wrong in its ...
Mohamedaly Sarafaly and Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Iii ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1967
Reported in: [1968]68ITR128(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, one for prohibition and the other for mandamus, are by the same firm, Mohamedaly Sarafaly & Co. The first respondent, pursuant to a notice dated May 17, 1966, under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, took coercive proceedings. The petitioner says that the first respondent acted without jurisdiction in issuing the notice. This is on the ground that, though the petitioner admitted the debt to the second respondent, he disputed that the principle was payable on demand and before the expiry of 10 years from the date of borrowing and that, in any case, without issuing a certificate in the first instance against the assessee for recovery under section 222, he has no power to proceed against the petitioner straightaway. The second ground has not been actually taken in the affidavits in support of the petitions. Nevertheless, we heard arguments on that too.The first ground turns purely on a factual matter, whether ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Abdul Wahab and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad280; 1969CriLJ918; (1968)1MLJ306
Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is remanded by the Supreme Court for determination of the question whether the appellant is guilty of an offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as the question whether the Chief Engineer, Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation was the 'person aggrieved' had not been determined by this Court.2. Six persons were tried by the Sub-Magistrate of Papanasam for an offence under Section 379, I. P. C. read with Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 44(c) and (d) of the said Act. All the accused were acquitted by the Sub-Magistrate and the State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal. During the hearing of the appeal in this Court, it was submitted that the prosecution of an offence alleged to have been committed by the accused under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act could not be instituted except at the instance of an 'aggrieved person'. The question whether dishonest abstraction, consumption or use of electric...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »