Chennai Court January 1968 Judgments
K. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. District Signal Telecommunication Engineer (Wor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad201; (1969)ILLJ351Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, K. Dakshinamoorthy was employed as a Khalasi in the Signal and Telecommunication Shop in the Southern Railway. He was drawing a pay of Rs. 72/- at the time when the Railway Authorities dismissed him from the service for serious misconduct by an order passed on 17-12-1964. Before passing the order of dismissal, a charge was framed against the petitioner for the following misconduct:'When you were passing through S. & T. Workshop Time Office counter at about 11-38 hours on 14-7-1964 your body and waist were searched by the RPF Staff at the gate and during the search you were found keeping your left hand pressed tightly with your body. This aroused suspicion and you were asked to lift your left hand. While lifting your left hand a small paper bundle fell down from your left arm pit. In the bundle 8 bolts with nuts and 10 washers were concealed'.2. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The charge was held proved and he was dismissed by the Di...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dakshinamoorthy Vs. the District Signal Tele-communication Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ191
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, K. Dakshinamoorthy was employed as a Khalas in the Signal and Tele-Communication Shop in the Southern Railway. He was drawing a pay of Rs. 72 at the time when the Railway authorities dismissed him from, the service for serious misconduct by an order passed on 17th December, 1964. Before passing the order of dismissal, a charge was framed against the petitioner for the following misconduct:When you were passing through S & T. Workshop Time Officer counter at about 11-38 hours on 14th July, 1964, your body and waist were searched by the RPF staff at the gate and during the search you were found keeping your left-hand pressed tightly with your body. This aroused suspicion and you were asked to lift you left hand. While lifting your left hand a small paper bundle fell down from your left arm pit. In the bundle 8 bolts with nuts and 10 washers were concealed.2. He was kept under suspension pending enquiry. The charge was held proved and he was dism...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1968
Reported in: [1972]86ITR467(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The point in this writ petition bears on the valuation of bonus shares. There is no controversy that 4,000 shares of Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd., were purchased by the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 15,09,376 though the face value of each share was Rs. 100. Each of such shares entitled the petitioner by reason of the purchase to two bonus shares so that the petitioner came to own 8,000 bonus shares, each of the face value of Rs. 100. All these shares were sold by the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 19,28,200. The petitioner valued the bonus shares at par, that is to say, at Rs. 8,00,000. He therefore, arrived at the result that there was a capital loss of Rs. 3,81,176. The department treated the 8,000 bonus shares as of nil value and arrived at capital gain of Rs. 4,18,824. That is the point of divergence between the petitioner and the department.Though there were two decisions, one of this court and the other of the Patna High ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pl. Firm Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR22(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The petitioner is a registered firm which seeks a direction to the respondent to exercise his powers under section 66(7) of Income-tax Act, 1922, and allow interest on a sum of Rs. 51,137.03 due as refund. The firm was, for the assessment year 1951-52, assessed to income-tax under section 23(3), its prayer for refund as a registered firm having been rejected. On the question status, the petitioner eventually succeeded on a reference to this court under section 66(2). Pursuant to the opinion expressed by this court in the reference, the Tribunal, by its order dated October 19, 1961, directed the Income-tax Officer to grant registration to the firm under section 26A for the year 1951-52. The Income-tax Officer carried out the direction by an order of his dated February 2, 1962. Thereafter, the same officer worked out the tax effect on the individual assessment of each of the partners and a s sum of Rs. 51,137.03 was adjusted by him against the tax due from them. As a resu...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Secretary, Home Dept., Madras V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad93
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The Superintendent of Police, Tanjore, suspended for a period of ten days the driving licence of one Krishnan, a lorry driver, for the alleged offence of overspeeding. For exercising this power, the Superintendent relied upon the delegation mentioned in Rule 134-AA of the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 44(5) and Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act under Section 16 conferred this power on the Regional Transport Authority. A power of delegation is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority under Section 44 (5) of the Act. Section 44 (5) of the Act contains a qualification that such delegation by the Regional Transport Authority of its powers and functions can be made only if authorised in this behalf by rules framed under Section 68. Rule 134-AA is a rule so framed. It was relied upon by the Superintendent of Police as the rule making such delegation to him of the power of suspension of a driver's licence.2....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Secretary, Home Department Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ138
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur, suspended for a period often days the driving licence of one Krishnan, a lorry driver, for the alleged offence of overspending. For exercising this power, the Superintendent relied upon the delegation mentioned in Rule 134-AA of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 44 (5) and Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act under Section 16 conferred this power on the Regional Transport Authority. A power of delegation is conferred on the Regional Transport Authority under Section 44 (5) of the Act. Section 44 (5) of the Act contains a qualification that such delegation by the Regional Transport Authority of its powers and functions can be made only if authorised in this behalf by Rules framed under Section 68. Rule I34-AA is a rule so framed and it was relied upon by the Superintendent of Police as the rule making such delegation to him of the power of suspension of a driver's l...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Naidu Vs. Krishnaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad90
Ismail, J.1. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. The respondent instituted a suit for redemption of an othi dated 1-11-1941, executed by him in favour of the appellant over his undivided half share in the property and for partition and separate possession of his half share. In the written statement filed by him, the appellant contended that the name of the respondent was included in the sale deed in respect of the suit property 'benami for namesake' and that the othi executed by the respondent arising out of the benami purchase 'did not in any way affect the position' and hence the respondent was not entitled to any relief.2. The learned District Munsif framed necessary issues and the suit was adjourned from time to time for trial and when the suit came up for trial on 30-1-1967, both parties filed a joint memo stating that if the respondent took special oath putting out camphor and wearing an arali garland in front of Adisolaxi Pulukandi Koil stating that the respondent had...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Rahmath Bibi Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Nagapattinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad208; [1969]72ITR73(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to forbid the respondent from taking any recovery proceedings against the petitioner's husband in pursuance of an order of assessment made against him on March 22, 1966. The petitioner is the wife of the assesses and she says that though her husband is a citizen of India, he has been prevented from coming over to India, from Malaya since September 6, 1965. For the year 1961-62, he returned an income of Rs. 4,500/-, but the respondent added a sum of Rs. 58,000/- and charged him to tax on a total income of Rs. 62,002/-. A demand was made on the assessee on March 28, 1966, for payment of the balance tax due, that is, Rs. 32.282.10. Against the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal on April 8, 1966, and on the same day, his power-of-attorney applied for stay of collection of the tax pending disposal of the appeal. The respondent, by his order dated April 15, 1966, granted time till May 15, 1966, for payme...
Tag this Judgment!Garlick and Company Private Limited Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC209(Mad)
ORDER that this order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned.3. After notice, the matter relating to stay came up before the Supreme Court again and by an order dated 18th July, 1967, the Supreme Court said :The application for stay above-mentioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 18th day of July, 1967, upon hearing counsel for the parties and upon the Advocate-General, Madras, undertaking on behalf of the State of Madras that the State shall not collect the tax which remains to be collected from the respondent herein pending the hearing and final disposal by the Court of the appeal above-mentioned THIS COURT DOTH RECORD the said undertaking and subject thereto DOTH ...
Tag this Judgment!Kubera Press (by Its Proprietor, K. Sivaraman) Vs. Regional Provident ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1968
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ799Mad
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Kumbera Press represented by its proprietor, K. Sivaraman. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, in C/MD/561 Regl, dated 12 April 1965 and quash the order dated 12 April 1965.2. The case of the petitioner is that originally the printing press which commenced in 1949 was run by one Ch. Subba Rao. The printing press went into voluntary liquidation in 1960. As the company was a member of the provident fund scheme and was submitting returns, when is went into voluntary liquidation and the employees were discharged; they were paid all the arrears discharged; they were paid all the arrears of provident fund and the account with the Provident Fund Commissioner was also closed. In the course of winding up, one Purim Parkas Rao purchased the press and he was running the same. He was not a member of any provident fund scheme and he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »