Chennai Court December 1968 Judgments
Southern Railway Mazdoor Union (by Its General Secretary, P. Govinda M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ83Mad
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union represented by its general secretary for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the General Manager, Southern Railway, and to quash his order dated 21 September 196S, withdrawing recognition to the petitioner-union.2. The petitioner is a trade union registered on 13 February 1961 under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Classes III and IV employees of the Southern Railway are members of the petitioner-union and the strength of membership of the petitioner-union as on 31 December 1967 is 43,737. The petitioner-union was recognized by the railway by its order dated 21 September 1963.3. The central executive council of the petitioner union met at Coonoor on 25 and 26 June 1963 and passed a resolution deciding to advise the members to go on a token strike on 19 September 1968. The resolution was conveyed to the railway on 3 September 1968. On 13 September 1968 ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, Represented by Its General Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ423
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the Southern Railway Mazdoor Union, represented by its General Secretary for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the General Manager, Southern Railway and to quash his order dated 21st September, 1968, withdrawing recognition to the petitioner-Union2. The petitioner is a trade union registered on 13 th February, 1961 under the provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926. Class III and Class IV Employees of the Southern Railway are members of the petitioner-union and the strength of membership of the petitioner-union as on 31st December, 1967 is 43,737. The petitioner-union was recognised by the Railway by its order dated 21st September, 1966.3. The Central Executive Council of the petitioner-union met at Coonoor on 25/26th June, 1968 and passed a resolution deciding to advise the members to go on a token strike on 19th September, 1968. The resolution was conveyed to the Railway on 3rd September, 1968. O...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Alameluthayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad184
1. The State of Madras represented by the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Town Planning Scheme, Coimbatore, has preferred these appeals against the common order passed by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, on C.C. Nos. 141 to 147. of 1960, on references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Town Planning Scheme, Coimbatore. The lands concerned in these cases form one continuous block and they are situate in an important, busy and well-developed residential locality in Power House Road and the object of the acquisition, was to widen the existing 75-feet broad road into a 100-feet road. There were buildings only in the lands concerned in Appeals Nos. 391 and 386 of 1962, The tenant who had put up a construction on the land concerned in Appeal No. 886 of 1962 has received compensation for the superstructure. The claim of the owner of that land ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. S. Govindan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad372; [1971]79ITR60(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question in this reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax is as to the applicability to the facts of the second proviso to Section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act. 1922.2. The assessee carried on business in Ceylon and by an order dated January 30, 1954, he was assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 90,378/-, against the admitted income of Rs. 40,378/-. His appeal resulted in enhancement of the total income to Rs. 94,905/-. The Tribunal confirmed that order and dismissed the assessee's further appeal. In the course of its order the Tribunal observed 'unexplained cash credits to the extent of Rs. 60,051/-' and stated that they did not represent genuine liability. On that basis, according to the Tribunal, the total income amounted to Rs. 1,00,429/-. Its order was dated November 27, 1959. The Income-tax Officer on the view that there was a finding by the Tribunal in respect of credits in the anamath accounts amounting to Rs. 60,051/- which were spuri...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1968
Reported in: [1969]74ITR243(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The substantial question relates to the application of the first proviso to Section 12B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to the facts and we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the proviso has no application. The assessee is a private limited company with its head office at Pudukottai and a branch at Madras. The reference is concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. Out of a total income of Rs. 8,97,976 returned, Rs. 8,06,916 related to the business income. On August 19, 1954, the assessee had purchased 669 shares of the Southern Roadways Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 93,660. On December 19, 1958, the assessee sold them for a total consideration of Rs. 66,900 to three ladies. On that transaction there was a loss of Rs. 26,760. On November 11, 1959, the directors of the assessee resolved that the difference between the cost and sale prices of the shares might be treated as a gift to the purchasers. What the purpose of this resolution was is n...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Arumugham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR382(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on an application by the department, arises out of an order of the Tribunal which accepted the contention of the assessee, that, the share of profits received by him as partner of the firm, Erode Bleaching and Finishing Company, was not his real income, but was income which he was bound to share with other persons under an agreement therefor.2. The assessee is a partner of Jyothikrishnan and Company, Erode, which has two others as partners thereto. The assessee is entitled to a one-third share of the profits in this firm. The assessee is also a partner in the firm, Erode Bleaching and Finishing Company, Erode, in which there are four others as partners. Jyothikrishna and Company, hereinafter referred to as ' J ' firm, found the wherewithal for the Erode Bleaching and Finishing Company, hereinafter called the ' B ' firm, and advanced moneys from time to time to provide a building and machinery f...
Tag this Judgment!Sow Dammal Alias Sundarammal Vs. Veerammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ205
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of remand made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The main contest between the parties is whether the house in respect of which partition was sought was the joint family property of Sreeranga Chettiar, the deceased father-in-law of the plaintiff or his separate property. If it was joint family property, the plaintiff would have a larger share than if it was a separate property, because if it was joint family property the plaintiff's deceased husband Nanjappa Chettiar would in his own right have been entitled to one-third share and the plaintiff would be further entitled to the share of Sreeranga Chettiar along with the others. The learned District Munsif, who tried the suit, on a consideration of the evidence, accepted the case of the plaintiff. On appeal preferred by the first defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge felt some difficulty in deciding the case and he thought that in the interests of...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanakrishnan Vs. Gopalaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ140
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.M.A. No. 27 of 1965. The petitioner herein was adjudicated an insolvent on his own petition. At or about the time when the insolvency proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, he has executed a promissory note for Rs. 7,000 in favour of the 1st respondent as evidenced by Exhibit A-2, dated 24th May, 1960. The petitioner, however, was canvassing the correctness of the said debt and this is seen from the correspondence that passed between the petitioner and the 1st respondent prior to the petitioner filing his application for adjudication. In fact, the petitioner filed his petition for adjudication on 25th July, 1963 and disclosed therein five debts two of which are decree debts and three others are debts accruing under promissory notes in favour of other parties. The 1st respondent thereafter instituted a suit on the foot of Exhibit A-2 on 8th October,...
Tag this Judgment!General Suppliers and Manufacturers (Firm by Its Partner V. Janakirama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ71
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Judgment of Kailasam, J., on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the .appellant before us for the issue of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, dated 8th June, 1968, and to quash the same. The appellant, Messrs. General Suppliers and Manufacturers, >is a partnership firm carrying on business at No. 87, North Main Street, Thanjavur. From 1962 in any event the firm had the benefit of three licences commonly known as DL-4, DL-5 and DL-8, issued under the Madras Prohibition Act, Madras Denatured Spirit, Methyl Alcohol and Varnish (French Polish) Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Act and the Rules respectively. It appears that originally these licences were granted in favour of Sri V. Janakiraman, the Managing Partner of the Firm and was renewed from time to time until the licences were transferred in the name of the above Fir...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindaswami Naicker Vs. S.R. Kerwar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ452
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is a very unusual proceeding under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960. Section 6 of that Act makes provision for a claim by the landlord for increase over rent in certain cases, where there has been an increase in the amount of the taxes and cesses payable relevant to the periods specified in Section 6, Sub-section (1) and where such excess or increase did not result ' from an increase of rent in respect of the building.' The landlord is entitled tinder Sub-section (1) to claim this excess of taxes and cesses in relation to the periods specified ' in addition to the rent payable for the building under this Act.' Under Sub-section (2) of Section 6, any dispute between the landlord and the tenant in regard to such increase, is to be decided by the Controller.2. The present proceeding was instituted by the landlord before the Controller in respect of taxes and cesses payable for the substantial building No. 26, Llyods Road, Roya...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »