Chennai Court March 1968 Judgments
Royal Arts by Managing Partner, G. Manickavel Vs. State of Madras, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1968
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ297
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, 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. No. 2508, Home, dated 7th August, 1963 amending the rules, under the Madras Cinema (Regulation) Act. By this amended rules, 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 app...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Jari Stores Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: [1969]24STC67(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner-firm-assessee, a dealer in textiles, was carrying on the business of buying and selling such goods in Madras. The assessee was a registered dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. For the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 the petitioner was assessed to an additional tax on its assessable turnover as per Section 3(2) of the Act. The assessable turnover represented the price of textile goods purchased by the assessee-firm from the local agents of non-resident principals, and, according to the assessee, the goods were subject to a first sale at that point. The petitioner would also state that such purchases were made either through agents as such or through branch offices of the non-resident principals or through del credere agents with full rights to deal with the goods. The petitioner's case is that the textile goods were dealt with by such agents, branch offices or del credere agents of non-resident principals as dealers withinH the meanin...
Tag this Judgment!JaIn Jari Stores Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Additiona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ147
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner firm-assessee, a dealer in textiles was. carrying on business of buying and selling such goods in Madras. The assessee was a registered dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. For the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 the petitioner was assessed to an additional tax on its assessable turnover as per Section 3 (2) of the Act. The assessable turnover represented the price of textile goods purchased by the assessee firm from the local agents of non-resident principals, and, according to the assessee, the goods were subject to a first sale at that point. The petitioner would also state that such purchases were made either through agents as such or through branch offices of the non-resident principals or through delcredere agents with full rights to deal with the goods. The petitioner's case is that the textile goods were dealt with by such agents, branch offices or del credere agents of non-resident principals as dealers within the meaning ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras District Automobile and General Employees' Union Vs. State of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad477; [1969(18)FLR212]; (1969)IILLJ161Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The writ appeal is by a Trade Union of the workmen of Messrs Sundaram Motors (Pte) Ltd, from the judgment of Veeraswami, J. in W. P. No, 1345 of 1962, declining to issue a writ of Mandamus to the State of Madras, to dispose of the alleged dispute afresh under Section 10 read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act It is not necessary to canvass the facts at any length. It is sufficient for us to state that the points in controversy related to revision of wage scales, dear-ness allowance, leave facilities, bonus for 1961 and gratuity, and, lastly, to the non-employment of one P. Sambasivan.2. A great deal of the area covered in the judgment of the learned Judge by wav of discussion, may now be regarded as unnecessary. The learned Judge referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court In State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan : (1960)IILLJ592SC and Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay, 1964 1 Lab LJ 351 = AIR 1954 SC 1617, and emphasised that the G...
Tag this Judgment!Vaiyapuri Reddy and anr. Vs. Sivalinga Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ92
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, in I.A. No. 784 of 1966 in O.S. No. 134 of 1965. This revision petition arises out of a suit for specific performance. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the petitioners. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to reconvey certain properties, which had been sold on 5th September, 1969 by him and two others to defendants 1 and 2. The claim against the third defendant a purchaser from defendants 1 and 2 of one of the items was given up. Defendants 1 and 2 submitted to a decree and therefore, the decree provided that they should execute a sale-deed and that in the event of default the plaintiff was to have the sale-deed executed by the Court and registered. Unfortunately, the decree did not provide the period within which the plaintiff was to pay the consideration for the sale-deed. The decree was on 27th June, 1966. The plaintiff did not either pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasamurthy Mandiram by Its Managing Trustee Venkatasubbiah Vs. Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ407
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition by the landlord is directed against an order of the Fifth Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras. He had filed a suit O.S. No. 359 of 1960 for ejectment and to recover arrears of rent. The defendant filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Both the suit and the application were dismissed. The dismissal of the suit was rested on the ground of want of notice under Section 11. The application under Section 9 was dismissed because, in the view of the Court of the Explanation to Section 9, the plaintiff as a trustee had no power to execute a sale in favour of the defendant except for. necessity. In taking that view, the Court below purported to follow Sivananda Gramani v. Mohammed Ismail (1959) 1 M.L.J. 263. The landlord subsequently brought O.S. No. 2907 of 1963 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears. The tenant taking advantage of this, filed over again an application under Section 9. Pending t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/ Wealth-tax/ Gift-tax Madras Vs. M. P. R. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR601(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - At the instance of Commissioner of Income-tax and under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the following questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for us render out answer thereto :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was correctly determined as Hindu undivided family for the income-tax, wealth-tax and gift-tax assessments of 1959-60, 1957-58 and 1958-59 respectively ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,60,00 transferred to the account of Muthukaruppan and Palaniappan in the previous year ending on April 13, 1958, was liable to assessment under the Gift-tax Act ?'The reference under the Income-tax Act relates to the assessment year 1959-60, under the Wealth-tax Act to the assessment year 1957-58, the valuation date being April 12, 1957, a...
Tag this Judgment!Natesa Pillai Vs. Koneri Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ405
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The lands covered by Patta No. 55 in Naraiyaur Village in Tiruvannamalai Taluk belonged to one Thanji Ammal. She mortgaged the same to the plaintiff for Rs. 700. On that mortgage, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 7 of 1956 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai and got a decree, executed it and himself purchased the property in Court auction. The sale was confirmed on 9th February, 1959, and the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession on 6th March, 1960. On 12th June, 1959, the first defendant, Village Munsif of Naraiyur Village suddenly went to the plaintiff's house and demanded Rs. 9-75 as kist for fasli 1368, in respect of lands covered by Patta No. 55 and served a distraint order. The plaintiff represented that he was not liable to pay and that only Thanji Ammal was liable to pay. The first defendant thereupon attached two bulls belonging to the plaintiff. In view of that, the plaintiff paid the sum of Rs. 9-75 to the first defendant under...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anjali Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ403
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner Anjali Devi, a cine actress has been convicted under Section 4(1)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of Court with a fine of Rs. 25 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one week by the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Madras.2. The revision petitioner along with two others, Anjaneyalu and Kumma Reddi were found made a car, parked at the junction of the Mullikuppam Road and the South Beach Road, with a bottle of ' Haywards ' Brandy and a bottle of 'Vat 69 ' Whisky, at about 11-45 p.m. on 19th September, 1967. Anjaneyalu pleaded guilty in respect of the charges framed against him whereas the revision petitioner as accused-2 and Kumma Reddi as accused-1 who had been tried together were convicted under Section 4 (1) (j). Accused-1 Kumma Reddi admitted that he consumed brandy but denied possession of liquor bottles. The revision petitioner denied possession as wel...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Mannadha Goundar and ors. Vs. Marappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad411; 1969CriLJ1410; (1969)1MLJ37
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings In M, C. No. 117 of 1967 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (J) Sankari for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed by one of the petitioners. The facts which arise on this application are these: 2. The respondent moved the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ex Officio, Sankari, by a petition dated 30-8-1966 under Section 145, Criminal P. C. claiming that certain properties described in the petition belonged to him, that he was in possession of the lands and that the petitioners herein encroached upon his possession. 3. In pursuance of the said petition, the learned Magistrate called for a report from the police and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sankari, submitted a report on 7-10-1966. 4. The learned First Class Magistrate, Sankari, passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1), Criminal P. C. and issued notice to both the petitioners and the respondent on 10-4-196...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »