Chennai Court November 1968 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.
D. Gobaloussamy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ62
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In Gobalussamy v. The Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors. : (1967)2MLJ85 , Ramakrishnan, J., and myself have dealt with the constitutional history of the French Settlements in India, Pondicherry in particular with reference to the three stages or phases of that development. For an appreciation of the argument now presented before us, on the central issue of the vires of the Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968 (XXVI of 1968), it is not necessary to traverse that ground again, but it is essential to recapitulate one or two salient features. As I have described in my judgment, the first phase relates to the development of the French Judicial System, and the introduction of French laws into the Settlement of Pondicherry. Even during the 23 years of British occupation, from 1793 to 1816, the French Judicial System continued to function intact, and the French Law was administered in the Courts of the Settlement. The Decrets proceeded upto 12th June, ...
D. Gobalousamy and anr. Vs. the Union Territory of Pondicherry Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ306
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. In these related petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act XII of 1966 is challenged. W.P. No. 2634 of 1966 has been filed by D. Gobalousamy, Advocate Council and President of the Bar Association, Pondicherry, and W.P. No. 3294 of 1968 by J. Gnany, President of the Court of First instance, Pondicherry, who, besides attacking the validity of the Act on general grounds, raises grounds personal to him.2. The impugned Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly of Pondicherry, and received the assent of the President on 21st October, 1966. It extends to the whole of the Union Territory of Pondicherry and Section 1 (3) of the Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Different provisions of the Act may be brought into force on different dates. The scheme of the enactment, in the main , is to substitute for the Tribunal Superieurd'...
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. (P.) Ltd., Madras Vs. Regional Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad194; (1970)ILLJ296Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by Messrs. P. S. N. S. Ambalavana Chetttar and Co, (P.) Ltd., Madras. According to the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of imports and exports dealing in non-ferrous metals and other commodities like papers, Madras cables, and are also engaged in the flotation of new concerns. The registered office of the company is situated at No. 14, Mint Street, Madras-3 and all the business of the company is carried on in that office where there are five employees. In 1951, as part of the activities, the petitioner started a factory styled as Sri Ram Rolling Milk at No. 7, Nelson Manicka Mudaliar Road, Aminjikarai, about five miles from the above registered office at Mint Street. The fectory was engaged in rolling non-ferrous metals and about 30 workers are employed in the factory. After the coming into force of the Employees' Provident Funds Act Central Act 19 of 1952), the provisi...
Estates Staff Union of South India (Represented by Its Deputy General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ94Mad
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In this case the petitioner is the Estates Staff Union of South India, represented by its deputy general secretary. Respondent 1 is the Commissioner of Labour and respondent 2 is the Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Company, Ltd., represented by its manager, Valparai post. Respondent 2 terminated the services of one Abraham, an employee in an estate belonging to respondent 2, after finding that he had not improved in his work in spite of warnings. A dispute arose between the union and the management over the termination of Abraham's services and the labour officer made an attempt at conciliation under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A settlement was arrived at, at the instance of the labour officer, and according to the terms of the settlement between the petitioner-union and respondent 2 management, both the parties agreed to leave the issue of Abraham's termination of services to be decided in arbitration by the Commissioner of Labour, Madras...
The Management of Hotel Asoka, by Partner L.G. Balakrishnan Vs. the La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ199
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the management of a hotel concern in Madras. It has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved against the order of the first respondent, the Labour Officer II, Mylapore, Madras. allowing the appeal of the 2nd respondent D. Kanthiraj, a worker in the hotel2. Though three charges were framed against the worker by the management the domestic enquiry, it actually pressed against the worker only the during working hours, he carried ''on vigorous trade union activities within the premises of the hotel by holding unauthorised discussions with co-workers' Two witnesses were examined by the management in support of the charge and they were cross-examined. The worker also gave his explanation. The management accepted the finding of the enquiry office that the worker was guilty of the charge and dismissed him from service Relying upon the provisions of Section 19(2) of The Madras Catering establishments Act, 1958...
Lala Gopikrishna Gokuldass Agencies Vs. the Assistant Collector of Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ599
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution imported in three consignments in 1963 items of ball and roller bearing of more than 51 mm. bore diameter. Bills of entry therefor were presented to the respondents, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising department in the Customs House, Madras on 14th June, 1963 and 10th September, 1963. The respondent assessed the petitioner to customs duty provisionally on those items on 20th August, 1963 and 11th October, 1963, on the footing that the ball and roller bearings fell under item 72 (38) of the First Schedule of the Indian Customs Tariff. The above item refers toball and roller bearings for use with shafting of more than 51 mm. diameter and adapter bearings not otherwise specified, which are specially designed for use exclusively with power-driven machinery and parts of such bearings not otherwise specified.2. At the same time, the respondent took an indemnity bond from the peti...
G. Sundararajan Secretary, MargIn Hawkers' Association Vs. the Panchay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ499
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, G. Sundararajan, is the Secretary of the Thirukalukundram Road Margin Hawkers' Association. He has also described himself as a trader who through his agents and hired servants hawks vegetables and other articles on the road margins in Thirukalukundram. He has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Resolution No. 189 passed by the first respondent, the Panchayat Board, Thirukalukundram, represented by its Executive Officer. The Resolution was confirmed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Chingleput when the petitioner appealed to him against the Resolution under the provisions of the Madras Panchayats Act (Madras Act XXXV of 1958). The impugned Resolution provides for the issue of an auction notice for collection of licence fee in the Thirukalukundram Town Panchayat weekly market, daily market stalls and from shops using the road margins. Then follows a list of areas where the au...
Mrs. P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Regional Provi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ160
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Messrs. P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar and Company (Private) Limited, Madras. According to the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of imports and exports dealing in non-ferrous metals and other commodities like papers, Madras cables, and are also engaged in the floatation of new concerns. The registered office of the company is situated at No. 14. Mint Street, Madras-3, and all, the business of the company is carried on in that office, where there are five employees. In 1951, as part of its activities the petitioner started a factory styled as Sri Ram Rolling Mills at No. 7, Nelson Manicka Mudaliar Road, Aminjikarai, about five miles from the above registered office at Mint Street. The factory was engaged in rolling non-ferrous metals and about thirty workers are employed in the factory. After the coming into force of the Employees' Provident Fund Act (Central Act XIX o...
M.S.M.M. Firm, Ipoh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR14(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This consolidated reference relating to the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 raises the following question : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of $1,00,455 and $71,460 were income liable to assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1951-52 and 1952-53 ?' 2. A Hindu undivided family comprised of the karta, who was the father, and his sons had acquired certain sites in 1919 and constructed houses thereon in 1928. The purchase of the sites was by payment of cash. The Hindu undivided family was also carrying on a money-lending business. The family owned an estate too. The cost of the house properties and the estate was $1,38,000. On April 13, 1951, the house properties and the estate were sold for $2,38,455.50, thus making a profit of $1,00,455.50. On April 12, 1952, there were sales of other properties, by which a profit of $71,460 was made. The Hindu undivided family remained so until '1940, when it got ...
Mrs. N. Savithri Sam Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR730(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is to direct the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle I, Coimbatore, to consider the application dated June 12, 1967, of the petitioner under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. On May 17, 1967, the Income-tax Officer communicated to the petitioner that, having regard to his representation to the Commissioner of Income-tax on April 9, 1967, in regard to the payment of tax, the Income-tax Officer was prepared to stay the collection of the tax in dispute in the appeal, if he paid one-half relating to the assessment year 1961-62 before May 25, 1967. The Income-tax Officer added that, if the petitioner defaulted, even the limited stay would be deemed to be withdrawn. On June 12, 1967, the petitioner applied to the Income-tax Officer and stated that as soon as a piece of land mentioned therein was sold, he would realise Rs. 25,000 and pay the same over towards the tax arrears immediately. The petitioner further stated that the Income-tax Officer should b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »