Chennai Court November 1968 Judgments
Harcharan Singh Premi Vs. the Officer Commanding Army, Military Hospit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad176
ORDERKailasam, J. 1. This petition is filed by a temporary Commissioned Officer to quash the Order of the Officer Commanding, Military Hospital, Madras dated 20-3-1967 in consequence of an order of the Ministry of Defence issued by the Director General, Armed Forces, Military Service dated 27-2-1967 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Commissioned Officer. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 8-12-1953 as a Sepoy Nursing Assistant. After about 10 years of service, he was promoted in 1963 as Lance Naik; and in 1964, as Naik. The petitioner appeared before the Service Selection Board at Kolhapur and before the Medical Board at Delhi and was selected for grant of Permanent Regular Commission in the Army Medical Corps by the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services by his order dated 22-4-1965. The petitioner reported himself for duty on 2-5-1965. The Petitioner's Commission was gazetted in the Gazette of India on 18-2-1967. Nine days after the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Harcharan Singh Premi Vs. the Officer Commanding, Army Military Hospit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ373
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by a temporary commissioned officer to quash the order of the Officer Commanding, Military Hospital, Madras, dated 20th March, 1967 in consequence of an order of the Ministry of Defence issued by the Director-General, Armed Forces, Military Service, dated 27th February, 1967 terminating the services of the petitioner as a Commissioned Officer.2. The petitioner was enrolled in the Army Medical Corps on 8th December, 1953 as a Sepoy Nursing Assistant. After about 10 years of service, he was promoted in 1963 as Lance Naik; and, in 1964, as Naik. The petitioner appeared before the Service Selection Board at Kolhapur and before the Medical Board at Delhi and was selected for grant of Permanent Regular Commission in the Army Medical Corps by the Director-General, Armed Forces Medical Services by his order dated 22nd April, 1965. The petitioner reported himself for duty on 2nd May, 1965. The petitioner's commission was gazetted in the Gazeette o...
Tag this Judgment!Kandasamy Udayar Vs. T.S. Karuppudayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ222
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This simple small cause proceeding, which is the substance of the revision, nevertheless involves one question of some interest. The suit was an apparently simple one for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 336-45 alleged to be due on dealings, and instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant (revision, petitioner). Both parties agreed that there were dealings, but the case of the defendant was that nothing was due.2. Point No. 1, as framed by the learned District Munsif, was whether the amount of Rs. 278-65 was due from the defendant to the plaintiff. On this aspect, the trial Court categorically comes to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff cannot be accepted, and cannot be regarded as true. But, even on the case which was common to the parties, on the dealings, there would be an amount of Rs. 145-75 to be paid by the defendant. The defendant swore that he repaid this entire amount on 2nd October, 1965, and relied on a slip Exhibit B-1, to show th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narayanan and Vadivel thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR616(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. Whether the status of the assessee could be treated as a registered firm for the broken period between July 1, 1959, and March 31, 1960, the accounting year ending on June 30. The assessee was constituted as a firm of partnership on July 1, 1957. It continued to carry on its business until March 31, 1960, when it was dissolved. On June 21, 1960, a return was filed for the assessment year 1960-61, that is to say for the accounting period ended June 30, 1959. Along with it an application for renewal of registration for that assessment year was also filed. On the dissolution of the firm, a further return was filed within the prescribed date. The precise date of this return is not clear. On the basis of these returns, separate assessments were made, one on March 30, 1962, for the assessment year 1960-61 and the other on May 23, 1962, for the period of nine months in the next assessment year. Renewal of registration having been granted on the application therefor, which was...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. Raval and Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ8
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of our learned brother Srinivasan, J., under Article 226 of the Constitution, prohibiting the Chief Rent Controller, Madras, from his further proceeding with H.R.C. No. 2942 of 1963 filed by the appellant herein for fixation of fair rent under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act XVIII of 1960. The appellants (hereafter referred to as the landlord) became owners of the premises, now bearing door numbers 16 and 17, Poonamallee High Road, in the City, under a registered sale deed dated 25th February, 1962. The 1st respondent herein, M/s. Raval & Co., (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) has been lessee of the premises from 20th December, 1935 and the application for the fixation of fair rent under the said Act was filed by the landlord on the 19th of July, 1963. Section 30 (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent. Control) Act, (XVIII of 1960), as amended by Madras Act II of 1962 (hereinafter referred to...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kanagavelu Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ431
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. WP. No 624 of 1968 is filed by a member of the Panchayat for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar, Cuddalore (first respondent) to hold a special meeting of the Kurinjipadi Panchayat under the provisions of Section 152 of the Madras Panchayat Act XXXV of 1958. W.P. No. 1165 of 1968 is filed by the same member for the issue of a writ of certiorati to call for the records of the Collector of South Arcot (first respondent) relating to P.D. 2/1463-68, dated 10th January, 1968 and quash the same.2. The petitioner and eight other members of the Panchayat gave a notice of 'no-confidence' motion against the President of the Panchayat and delivered it to the Tahsildar of Cuddalore on 14th December, 1967. The Tahsildar by his notice dated 2nd January, 1968 intimated that a special meeting of the Panchayat will be held on 18th January, 1968 at 4 p.m. in the Panchayat office building. It is stated by the petitioner that he and the other members attended ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shanmugasundara Nadar Vs. V. Sadasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ610
N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant, Shanmugasundara Nadar was convicted under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C.C. No. 4690 of 1966.2. The facts of the prosecution case are these : The appellant is an industrialist. He has been doing business in collaboration with Czeckoslovakian people. He had accounts in various banks like, National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Madras, Canara Bank, Indian Overseas Bank etc. It appears that he was also having certain business connections in foreign countries, and exporting handlooms and getting import incentive licences. In November, 1965, he was expecting National Defence Remittance Certificates and wanted one Sathar who was doing import business in the name of Commercial Syndicate, examined as D.W.1 in this case, to find out whether he could sell those certificates on forward sale basis. Sathar contacted one Swami of Swami & Co...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pattabiraman Vs. Parijatham Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad257
Alagiriswami, J.1. The plaintiff in the suitis the appellant. The suit related to aportion of a house. The house originallybelonged to one Venkatarajalu Naidu andhis son Manayala Naidu. Manavala Naidupredeceased his father leaving his widowLakshmikanthammal. VenkatarayaluNaidu died on 7-11-1934, leaving behindhim his widow Rajammal and daughterKuppammal, Rajammal died in 1938.The appellant is the son of Kuppammal.Lakshmikanthammal filed O.S. 1344 of1940 against Kuppammal for hermaintenance and other reliefs. Thesuit was compromised and a compromise decree was passed under whichLakshmikanthammal was given the rightto enjoy the suit property during herlifetime in lieu of maintenance and residence. Pariiathammal her daughter thefirst defendant was given the right toreside in the property till her marriage.Lakshmikanthammal subsequently diedand Pariiathammal continues to reside inthe suit proprety and collect rents. Thesuit was, therefore, filed for declarationof the appellant's title and ...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. C.R. Ramachandra Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad335; [1969]73ITR166(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. In the first of these references arising out of the Tribunal's order, the question substantially is whether the property in Avinashi Road, Coimbatore, as well as a sum of Rs. one lakh passed at the death of one C. S. Ramaiah Gounder on 5-5-1957 and, as such, are dutiable under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. He was 3 partner of a firm, called N. Desi Gounder and Co., at Coimbatore, and the property was in the occupation of the firm as a tenant. In August 1953 by a registered document, he settled the property absolutely and irrevocably on his two sons, C. R Lingiah and C. R. Krishnan. Even thereafter the firm continued to be in occupation of the premises, but the rents accruing were thenceforward credited in equal shares to the relative accounts of the donees in its books. The partnership came to an end on 30-4-1957. On 30-3-1953, long before its dissolution, the firm was asked by Ramaiah Gounder to transfer from his loan account with it a sum of Rs. one l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Meyyappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR20(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. We do not think there is much in this reference. The question referred to us is :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of salary, commission and travelling expenses paid to Sri Adaikappa Chettiar, from his share income in the firm of M/s. S.K. Pictures, Tirunelveli '2. The assessee and one S. Kalyanasundaram Pillai entered into a partnership with effect from June 1, 1957. The name of the firm was to be S. K. Pictures, registered with the Registrar of Firms, Madras. After reciting the capital structure of the firm and providing for interest for any advance made by Kalyanasundaram Pillai to the firm, the partnership deed mentioned the objects of the business, viz., to finance production of pictures, take pictures for distribution for entire area and for any area and arrange production of pictures and also take pictures on commission basis for distribution and all other conn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »