Chennai Court January 1968 Judgments
V. Kunju Chettiar, Proprietor, Angalamman Transports, Musiri, Tiruchir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad356
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. These writ proceedings involve, in essence, the consideration of the correctness of the view taken by Veeraswami J. in Mettupalayam Coonoor Service v. Nilgiri Motor Transport, (1947) (P) Ltd. : AIR1965Mad91 . We may state, at the outset that the learned Judge addressed himself in this judgment to the interpretation of Section 48 (3) (iii) and (iv) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and rules 134-A (xv) and 269, Motor Vehicles Rules 1940 (amended in 1959). On a consideration of these authorities (provisions-sic), the learned judge held that the Secretary of the Regional Transport authority had no power to revise or modify the timings already fixed or approved in respect of a stage-carriage, since there could be no delegation of such a power by the Transport authority to the Secretary, permissible under the statute and the rules.2. The particular line of reasoning which led the learned Judge to this conclusion will be found set forth in a paragraph at page 250 of the M...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venugopala Chettiar Vs. the State Represented by the Secretary, Foo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ400
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. The writ appeal is within a limited compass, and, stated, very briefly, it really involves the interpretation and application of the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. B.K. Takkamore : [1967]2SCR583 , to the facts of the case.2. The facts are that the appellant was the holder of a licence under the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. Charges were framed against him for alleged infringement of the terms of the licence, and derelictions of duty in the light of obligations undertaken by the licensee. There were four such charges; two of them related to possession of excess stock on physical verification, and the third charge related to transport on 21st July, 1959 of 70 bags of rice, for sale, outside the State to Kerala, without the issue of a sale bill as required by condition 5 of the licence. The fourth charge related to non-delivery of a large quantity of rice towards procurement.3. The charg...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narayanan Vs. Madura Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1968
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ218Mad
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, varying the decree granted in his favour by the District Munsif. Nagapattinam. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant-company and was dismissed from its service on 8.6.1962. He thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, Act 36 of 1947, and on 14.11.1962 the order of dismissal was set aside. On the defendant-company refusing to entertain the plaintiff in service, after issuing notice, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming reliefs, inter alia, for reinstatement in service, for salary from the date of dismissal till the date of plaint with interest thereon and, in the alternative, damages for wrongful dismissal in a sum of Rs. 2000. The defendant company raised various defences, inter alia, challenging the validity of the order of the Additional Commissioner fo...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thandavaraya Chetty Vs. the District Khadi and Village Industries O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ439
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the President of the Athimancheripet Oil Producers Co-operative Society Ltd., for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Kancheepuram dated 12th November, 1967 in Rc. No. 5598 of 1967 nominating a President and six directors to the society and to quash the same.2. The society was registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 on 31st March, 1964, and started functioning from 14th June, 1964. The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Board of Directors and President of the Society by the Deputy Director (Industrial Co-operative), Madras, on 19th May, 1966, for a period of one year. According to the appointment order the petitioner's period as Director and President expired on 19th May, 1967. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 12th November, 1967, on the ground that according to Section 27(3)(...
Tag this Judgment!V. Narayanan Vs. Madura Company (P.) Ltd. Nagapattinam, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1968
Reported in: (1970)83MLJ1
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nagappatinam, varying the decree granted in his favour by the District Munsif of Nagapattinam. The plaintiff was an employees of the defendant-company and was dismissed from its Service on 18th June, 1962. He thereupon preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act XXXVI of 1947, and on 14th November 1962 the order of dismissal was set aside. On the defendant-company refusing to entertain the plaintiff in service, after issuing notice, the plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises claiming reliefs, inter alia, for reinstatement in service, for salary from the date of dismissal till the date of plaint with interest thereon and, in the alternative, damages for wrongful dismissal in a sum of Rs. 2,000. The defendant-company raised various defences, inter alia challenging the validity of the order of the Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (Central), Madras Vs. S. Sivaramakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad300; [1968]70ITR860(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These are petitions Hied by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras (Central) Madras, under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act 1922. The respondent was an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Trivandrum. He was assessed to income-tax for the years 1951-52 to 1956-57 by orders made by that officer in February 1955, for the first three years, in April of that year, for the fourth year in February 1956, for the fifth year and in November of that year for the last year. The assessment orders were reopened by the income-tax officer which resulted in an order dated 31-12-1962. Proceedings for levy of penalty were also started by that officer which were referred to by him to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range, Madras, under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961.On 1-10-1964, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner levied a penalty for each of the years, but his orders on appeal filed by the assessee were set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Eswari Pillai Vs. Madhavan Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad227
ORDER:In this case on 12th December 1967, the second appeal was allowed and an application for leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was refused. The matter has now been taken up for consideration at the request of the advocate for the respondent for reconsideration of the order refusing leave to appeal. The question for consideration, therefore, is, whether after leave to appeal has been refused, it is open to the Court to reconsider that order and grant leave. Reliance is placed on behalf of the respondent on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in In re Srinadham, : AIR1963AP18 . Rule 105 of the Appellate Side Rules of the Andhra Pradesh High Court runs as follows:--'When an appeal against an appellate decree or order has been heard and disposed of bv a Single Judge an application for leave to appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court shall be made orally and immediately after the judgment has been delivered.'Before the Andhra Pradesh Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. H.T. Vira Reddi Vs. Kistamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad235
Ramamurti, J. 1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother; with respect, I entirely agree with his reasonings and conclusions. The only justification for my writing a separate judgment is (as Lord Campbell observed in Piers v. Piers, (1849) 2 HL Cas 331 9 ER 1 118 observed at page 1136), the tremendous responsibility that is cast upon us while rendering this decision which will have grave and serious consequences upon the status of the child. We have bestowed anxious and careful thought over all the aspects of the matter and have reached the clear conclusion that applying all the standards of strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt, as insisted in all matrimonial cases, the appellant had made out a case for judicial separation under Section 10(1)(f) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (referred to herein as the Act) i. e. on the ground that the respondent had had sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant The prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) ...
Tag this Judgment!Saradambal Vs. A.M.P. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad324
Ismail, J.1. The appellant herein who was the judgment debtor in O. S. 5 of 1953, filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. on 30-9-1963 for setting aside the sale of the property that took place in execution of the decree in the suit and purchased by the respondent herein, and also filed an application for dispensing with the furnishing of security contemplated by the proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. I must mention the fact that the suit itself was based on a mortgage and the respondent herein, who was the decree-holder, purchased the property in auction for a sum of Rs. 2005.The application filed by the appellant for dispensing with the furnishing of security was numbered as E. A. 525 of 1963, the same was dismissed and the appellant herein was directed to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 2000 within one month from the date of the order dated 14-11-1963. The learned Subordinate Judge of Chinglcput who disposed of that application, stated that the point for determinati...
Tag this Judgment!H.T. Vira Reddi Vs. Kistamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ366
K.S. Ramamurthi, J.1. I have perused the judgment of my learned brother; with respect, I entirely agree with his reasonings and conclusions. The only justification, for my writting a separate judgment is (as Lord Campbell observed in Piers v. Piers 11 House of Lord Cases 9 Eng. Rep. 1118 at page 1136, the tremendous responsibility that is cast upon us while rendering this decision which will have grave and serious consequences upon the status of child. We have bestowed anxious and careful thought over all the aspects of the matter and have reached the clear conclusion that applying all the standards of strict proof beyond all reasonable doubt, as insisted in all matrimonial cases, the appellant had made out a case for judicial separation under Section 10 (0 CO of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (referred to herein as the Act) i.e., on the ground that the respondent had had sexual intercourse with some person other than the appellant. The prayer for a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1)...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »