Chennai Court February 1968 Judgments
Workmen of Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Represented by Cement Workers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ479
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. The question that arises in all these writ petitions is whether the Government having once declined to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication after consideration of a conciliation report, could, by a subsequent order, refer the same dispute for adjudication.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 2900 of 1967 and 2901 of 1967 relate to a dispute between Best & Co. (P.) Ltd., and its workers. M/s. Best & Co. was owning seven factories in Madras, and each of these factories had its own licence issued under the Factories Act, and workmen had been recruited for each factory separately. One of the factories, namely, Bestonite Factory, had to stop production due to non-availability of sulphuric acid. The factory was closed on 9th January, 1966 and thirty-four employees (29 workers and 5 in the staff section) were given notice and paid closure compensation. Of the thirty-four persons, seventeen persons (12 workers and five staff) received the amount and settled the accounts. The...
Tag this Judgment!V. Danmull Sowcar Vs. Syed Ali Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad214
Sadasivam, J. 1. Petitioner is a tenant of a non-residential building, 6, Davidson Street, G.T. Madras owned by the respondent. The respondent got an order for eviction on his application before the Second Additional Rent Controller, Madras who held that the respondent, who is the owner of the non-residential building, does not own any other non-residential building other than the one leased to the petitioner and that he bona fide required it for his business, as the Managing Partner of the Mishba Transport Corporation, and the said order for eviction was confirmed by the appellate authority. The petitioner has come up to this Court in revision. 2. Veeraswami, J., before whom the petition came up for final disposal, considered that the question, whether one of the partners of a firm who is the owner of a non-residential premises could apply for eviction of the tenant occupying the same on the ground that he required it lor carrying on his partnership business, should be decided by a Be...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramaniam and anr. Vs. Rathinam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad380
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated 13-3-1967 declining to grant permission to the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis in O. P. No. 57 of 1965 on his file. In the proposed suit two sets of properties, namely, A schedule and B schedule properties, are included, and the case of the petitioners is that both the schedule properties belong to their father Rajagopala Chettiar who was impleaded as 12th respondent in the said O. P. In 1931 Rajagopala Chettiar executed a deed of settlement in favour of his mother Rukmani Ammal in respect of A schedule properties. Under the terms of the document Rukmani Ammal was to enjoy the A schedule properties for her life without powers of alienation and after her life time one half of the properties was to devolve on the petitioners and the other half of the properties, on the brother of the 12th respondent. Subsequently, it is alleged, that Rajagopala Chettiar along with Rukmani ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Pl. Vs. Vellayappa Chettiar V. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR144(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - In this petition for cetiorari field by the assessee, the question turns on a construction of the scope of an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, who is the first respondent. The second respondent, who is the IInd Income-tax Officer, Karaikudi, made an assessment purporting to be pursuant to the Tribunal dated October 19, 1961. The Tribunal made that order in the follwing circumstances. The assessee originally was a member of Hindu undivided family. There was a partition on March 11, 1939, Thereafter, the assessee, his wife and three sons, the first on March 11, 1939. Thereafter, the assessee, his wife and three sons, the first of whom was a major and the last two were minors having been admitted to the benifits of the partnership. The assessee was assessed to income-tax for the assessment year 1951-52, treating the firm as an unregistered one. In the assessment order, his share income was shown as Rs. 29,124 but, as a loss was returned with regard to the u...
Tag this Judgment!N. Bella Gouder Vs. Tahsildar of Coonoor and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad143
Veeraswami, J.1. The petitioner, an erstwhile director of a private limited company by name The Coonoor Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd., prays for a rule forbidding the respondents from attaching his personal properties for recovery of penalty levied on the company for non-payment of tax due for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61. On 10-1-1962, he filed a declaration of solvency with the Registrar of Companies and on 19-1-1962, there was a resolution of the company for going into voluntary liquidation. In regard to that matter correspondence followed between the Registrar of Companies and the petitioner which does not appear to be relevant to the present petition. On 27-11-1962, there was an order levying penalty. On a certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer, the first respondent has taken recovery proceedings.2. Two points for the petitioner are urged. One of them is that he has not been negligent or guilty of misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the affairs of the company and therefore h...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Baliah Vs. T.S. Rangachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad145
1. The petitioner in all these cases is the same. They are dealt with together as the points raised are substantially the same.2. The revision petitioner is a cine-actor. Four complaints were filed against him by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-6, Madras, alleging that he had been systematically filing false returns of his income and had omitted to give true information regarding his professional earnings liable to be taxed from the year 1957 with a view to evade payment of tax and he had deliberately concealed material particulars of his income in spite of notices having been issued by the Department to file a true and correct Statement of income. The first three complaints relating to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 respectively were filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and under Section 177, I.P.C. The fourth complaint which is in respect of the assessment year, 1961-62 was filed under Section 277 o...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Baliah Vs. T.S. Rangachari, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ451
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in all these cases is the same. They are dealt with together as the points raised are substantially the same.2. The revision petitioner is a cine actor. Four complaints were filed against him by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle -6, Madras, alleging that he had been systematically filing false returns of his income and had omitted to give true information regarding his professional earnings liable to be taxed from the year, 1957, with a view to evade payment of tax and he had deliberately concealed material particulars of his income in spite of notices having been issued by the Department to file a true and correct statement of income. The first three complaints relating to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 respectively were filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and under Section 177, Indian Penal Code. The fourth complaint which is in respect of the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!T. S. Baliah Vs. T. S. Rangachari, Income-tax Officer, Central Circle ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR163(Mad)
The petitioner in all these case is the same. They are dealt with together as the points raise are substantially the same.The revision petitioner is a cine actor. Four complaints were filed against him by the Income-tax Officer, Central circle 6, Madras, alleging that he had been systematically filing false return of his income and had omitted to give true information regarding his professional earnings liable to be taxed from the year 1957, with a view to evade payment of tax ad he had deliberately concealed material particulars of his income in spite of notice having been issued by the department to file a true and correct statement of income. The first three complaints relating to the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61, respectively, were filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and under section 177, Indian Penal Code. The fourth complete, which is in respect of the assessment year 1961-62, was filed under secti...
Tag this Judgment!N. Bella Gowder Vs. Tahsildar, Coonoor, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR26(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - The petitioner, an erstwhile director of a private limited company by name. The Coonoor Talkies Private Limited, prays for a rule for bidding the respondents from attaching his personal properties for recovery of penalty levied on the company for non-payment of tax due for the years 1959-60. On January 10, 1962, he died a declaration o f solvency with the Registrar of Companies and on January 19, 1962, there was a resolution of the company for going into voluntary liquidation. In regard to that matter correspondence followed between the Registrar of Companies and the petitioner which does not appear to be relevant to the present petition. On November 27, 1962, there was an order levying penalty. On a certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer, the first respondent has taken recovery proceedings.Two points for the petitioner are urged. One of them is that he had not been negligent or guilty of misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to proceeded against for recovery ...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahim Bivi and ors. Vs. K.M.M. Pakkir Mohideen Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad17
Alagiriswami, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this case is about the validity of the settlement deed Ex. B-5 dated 20-12-1937, executed by Kathija Bivi, the paternal grandmother of the defendant in this case in his favour. The defendant is the son by the first wife of one Mohideen Pichai. The first plaintiff is the second wife of Mohideen Pichai and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are her children. Kathiia Beevi died on 1-12-1949 and Mohideen Pichai in 1958. There was an earlier suit, O. S. 54 of 1959, filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs for partition of the family properties. That suit was decreed on 29-2-1960, holding the settlement executed by Kathiia Bivi valid. A. S. 146 of 1960 filed against the decree in O. S. 54 of 1959 was dismissed on 18-10-1960, but the question regarding the validity of Ex. B-5 was left open. The plaintiffs filed the present suit on 14-2-61, claiming that there was a family arrangement on 25-12-1961 under Ex. A-1 by which they got the defendant's ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »