Chennai Court March 1968 Judgments
A.R. Balasubramanian Vs. V. Palani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ1297
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of the First Class Magistrate No. II, Pondicherry, overruling the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner in Cri. M. P, 1585 of 1965 before him and directing the respondents herein to conduct prosecution in C. C. 460 of 1967 under Section 495(1) Cri. P.C.2. The facts are briefly these : One Mrs. Gamier filed a complaint against the revision petitioner and two others for offences of criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and falsification of accounts before the First Class Magistrate, Pondioherry. After recording the sworn statement of the complain-ant, the Inspector of Crime Branch Pondicherry was directed to enquire into the complaint under Section 202, Cri. P.C. and submit a report to the First Class Magistrate. The Inspector of Crime Branch submitted his report on 13-10-1967. The case was taken on file and summonses w...
Tag this Judgment!Bharathi Mills Vs. Krishnaswami (D.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ580Mad
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two appeals seeking relief by way of cassation arise from the order of the tribunal of first instance at Pondicherry before which appeals were filed against thedecision of the labour court of Pondicherry constituted under the French Labour Code of 1952, to adjudicate upon an individual dispute between one Kichenassami, formerly supervisor in the Bharathi Mills, Pondicherry, and the management. The prior facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two appeals are briefly the following.2. It is common ground that the supervisor in question started his service under the mills as an ordinary worker in 1946 and he had therefore completed in 1962, to which date the present enquiry relates, sixteen years of service. He has been promoted to the higher post of supervisor on 28 May 1962. On 19 September 1962, the management issued a notice to him in the following terms:The above instances clearly point out your negligence in the execution of your duty. You had...
Tag this Judgment!Anantha Pillai Vs. Rathnasabapathy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ574
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One Chockalinga Mudaliar had no sons but had two daughters by names Janaki Ammal, wife of the first defendant, whose son is the 2nd defendant, and Kuppammal, the 3rd defendant, whose husband is the 4th defendant. This Chockalinga Mudaliar on 15th May, 1933, executed a will bequeathing all his properties to his two daughters who were minors on that date, though Janaki Ammal was married. Under the terms of the will be authorised the 1st defendant, the husband of Janaki Ammal, to manage the properties and put Kuppammal in possession of her share of the properties on her attaining majority. On 20th December, 1933, the suit properties were purchased under Exhibit B-l in the name of Janaki Ammal and Kuppammal. On 30th June, 1937, Janaki Ammal executed a power-of-attorney in favour of her husband, the first defendant (Exhibit A -18). On 24th June, 1947 the first defendant executed an agreement, Exhibit A-l, in favour of the 5th defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff,...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bharathi Mills Vs. D. Krishnaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ116
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two appeals seeking relief by way of cassation arise from the order of the Tribunal of First Instance at Pondicherry before which appeals were filed against the decision of the Labour Court of Pondicherry constituted under the French Labour Code of 1952, to adjudicate upon an individual dispute between one Kichenassamy, formerly Supervisor in the Bharathi Mills, Pondicherry, and the management. The prior facts which are necessary for the disposal of these two appeals are briefly the following:2. It is common ground that the Supervisor in question started his service under the Mills as an ordinary worker in 1946 and he had therefore completed in 1962,, to which date the present enquiry relates, 16 years' of service. He has been promoted to the higher post of Supervisor on 28th May, 1962. On 19th September, 1962 the management issued a notice to him in the following terms:The above instances clearly point out your negligence in the execution of your duty. You ...
Tag this Judgment!P.N.P. Thulkarunai and Co. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Fina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ539
Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of brothers. It was formed in the; year 1959. The firm has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated January 6, 1965, passed by the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for contravention of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act.2. As a result of the search of the petitioner's premises under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act, certain incriminating documents were seized and a close scrutiny of the documents revealed, according to the department, a number of contraventions of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to give full details about the petitioner's connection with one K.S. Mohamcd Ismail of Ponang. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the department proceeded to take proceedings under Section 23D. Finally, the department found the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC355(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These are petitions for certiorari to quash certain orders of the assessing authority, which, for the years 1959-60 to 1961-62, reopened assessments on the petitioner and brought to charge the value for each year of packing material, namely, gunny bags, used for packing cement for each of the years. On the view that the value of packing material was deliberately undisclosed, penalties were also levied. It is not necessary to mention the actual figures as nothing turns on them.2. The assessing officer took the view that it is only cement that is covered by the requisition for supply under the Cement Control Order, 1956, and the Cement Control Order, 1961, and not the packing material. As to the application of Rule 6(f)(ii) its view was that the Central Government fixed the maximum price for packing materials every quarter leaving the actual rate to the discretion of the assessees and the State Trading Corporation.3. Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1961] 12 S.T.C. 205 an...
Tag this Judgment!P. N. P. Thulkarunai and Co. Vs. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Fi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR149(Mad)
The petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of brothers. f It was formed in the year 1959. the firm has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated January 6, 1965, passed by the Director, enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for contravention of the provisions of section 5(1) of the Act.As a result of the search of the petitioners premises under the provisions of section 19(3) of the Act, certain incriminating documents were seized and a close scrutiny of the documents revealed, f according to the department, a number of contraventions of the provisions of the Act. The petitioner was called upon to give full details about the petitioners connection with one K. S. Mohammed Ismail of Penang. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the department proceeded to take proceedings under section 23D. Finally, the department found the petitioners connectio...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Arts, Coimbatore, by Managing Partner, G. Manickavel Vs. State o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad211
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The point raised for decision in this writ petition is a short one. The petitioner is a licensee licensed to run cinema exhibitions in a theatre in Coimbatore. In his cinema theatre he had put up a cycle-stand. This cycle-stand is leased to one Muthuswami. On an average about 1,500 cycles used to be parked per month during the shows. The lessee used to employ three boys on a salary of Rs. 60 each per month for looking after the cycles and he was charging 10 np. per cycle for parking in the cycle-stand, while the affairs stood thus, the first respondent, State Government of Madras, issued an order in G O. Ms. 2508 Home dated 7-8-1963 amending the rules, under the Madras Cinema (Regulation) Act. By this amended rule, a further condition. No. 16, was added to the previous conditions of the licence in form C granted to the cinema exhibitors:-'16. The licensee shall provide a suitable cycle-stand for all cycles that may reasonably be expected and appoint a care-taker...
Tag this Judgment!Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Cus.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: 1999(107)ELT593(Mad)
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The point which arises for decision in this writ petition is a brief one. The petitioner, Messrs. Carborandum Universal Ltd., Madras, imported from manufacturers in Switzerland, for use in their manufacture of coated and bonded abrasives, an article known as 'Silk Bolting Cloth' which is, according to their affidavit, an indispensable component part of the machinery designed to effect the proper sieving of grains which are used in the manufacture of abrasives. The petitioner has taken the trouble to show the blueprint of the machinery wherein, this 'Silk Bolting Cloth' which is of a standard measurement of 40' x 30' or 80 cms. x 100 cms. exactly fits into the standardised frames manufactured for the purpose. The petitioner purchased 'Silk Bolting Cloth' under an import licence from manufacturers in Switzerland and had the necessary invoices. It wanted to pay customs duty under Item 72(3) of the First Schedule of the Import Tariff under the heading 'Component ...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Khimji (by Haridas Gordhandas, Sole Proprietor) Vs. Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: (1970)ILLJ87Mad
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These petitions are preferred by the proprietor of a company which is dealing in timber in Cannanore for the issue of writs of certiorari calling for the records of the presiding officer of the labour court, Madras, dated 19 October 1965, in the claim petitions and quashing the same.2. The facts in all the four writ petitions are similar and the petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The facts in Writ Petition No. 441 of 1966 are these. The petitioner-firm had two branches, cue at Mangalore and other at Madras. The Madras branch was a sales depot where sale of timber received from the head office was effected. In the Madras branch the petitioner had under its employment seven persons as staff and workmen. The petitioner decided to suspend the sale of timber at Madras branch with effect from 1 July 1964. He, therefore, advised the staff and workmen by a telegram on 29 June 1964 that the petitioner was closing down his Madras business, and that the servi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »