Chennai Court July 1968 Judgments
The State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ398
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The Tribunal finds that there were about 400 transactions effected by the company out of which only 14 customers asked for cover of the risk effected by the company in transit of the goods, and the charges incurred in that connection were recovered from The customers It also appears that the insurance charges were independent of the price and not included therein. That being the case, the insurance charges cannot part of the turnover of the dealer. Rule 6 which provides for exemption or deductions covers only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount cannot form of the turnover of the only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount would be part of the price. The rule does not cover a case in which the amount in question is not a part of price, for in that case no exemption is at all required. Our attention has been invited to the Explanation to the definition of turnover in the Act. But as we said , the insurance charges are incurred to cover...
Tag this Judgment!M.A.A. Raoof Vs. K.G. Lakshmipathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad268
Venkataraman, J. 1. This appeal raises an interesting question of the validity of attachment of certain shares belonging to the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder Lakshmipathi obtained a decree in O. S. No. 2344 of 1960, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, by consent. He filed E. P. 1458 of 1966 to recover a sum of Rs. 8,000/- odd by attachment and sale of the shares which the judgment-debtor Raoof held in a company called Intrac Pharmaceutical (Pte.) Ltd., Industrial Estate, Ambattur. An interim prohibitory order was issued both to the judgment-debtor and to the company. The company did not appear and object. The judgment-debtor appeared and took time to file a counter. He did not file the counter in time and so the attachment was made absolute. Against that order he has filed the present appeal. 2. The point taken on behalf of the appellant by his learned Counsel Sri K. N. Subramaniam is that, though the judgment-debtor Raoof lives within the jurisdiction of the City Civil C...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramdass Vs. P. Samu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ338
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for damages for defamation. The defamation consists of a complaint by the appellant to the police in which he had stated in connection with a theft, that the respondent alone was his enemy in all respects and that the theft might have been committed only by him to give trouble to him. The trial Court took the view that the appellant bona fide and reasonably thought that the respondent (plaintiff) might have been responsible for the theft and could not, therefore, be said to have defamed the respondent. The lower appellate Court took the view that the complaint does not admit of any other interpretation than that respondent must have committed that theft and, therefore, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.2. In this Court, the only point taken before me is that the complaint given by the respondent is absolutely privileged and that therefore, the lower appellate Court was wrong in having allowed the appeal and decreed the...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Sali Vs. Siluvai Arikkanjir Fernande (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ415
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The question that arises in this case is one of limitation. The defendant executed, the suit promissory note on 22nd July, 1955. The suit was filed originally in the Court of the District Munsif, Tuticorin on 22nd July, 1958, that is, on the last day of limitation . The defendant contended that Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Thereupon, the plaintiff endorsed on the back of the plaint that the plaint may be returned to him for presentation to the Court at Nagercoil where the defendant resides. As a result of the endorsement the plaint was returned on 6th August, 1959, and it was re-presented in the Court of the District Munsif, Nagercoil, on 19th August, 1959. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by limitation . The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.2. It is not disputed that the period during which the suit was pending in the District Munsif's Court, Tuticori...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Amirthalingam Vs. K.P. Arunachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ649
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. Though this matter has had a very protracted history, in the light of the actual disposal that we propose to make of this appeal from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in C.M.A. No. 20 of 1965, it is sufficient to set forth only a few salient facts. Not merely this, but it is also desirable that we should be very concise in our observations, as the main litigation is still pending, and there are several controversies between the parties that have to be still resolved, upon the principles of Company Law relevant to the litigation.2. We might commence with the interim injunction ordered by the Subordinate Judge's Court of Vellore on 7th November, 1964, in an interlocutory application in O.S. No. 132 of 1964, restraining the defendants from passing the proposed Resolutions 2 (a), 2 (b) and 2 (c) in the Agenda for the General Meeting to be held on 11th November, 1964. Admittedly on the forenoon of 11th November, 1964, only other non-controversial resolutions were pa...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Margabandu Mandri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ274
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The auction purchaser, who filed an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, and who is aggrieved against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur, who dismissed his application, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Certain facts have to be noted before the relevant contentions are considered. The properties in question were subject to a mortgage originally and the mortgagor purported to sell a portion of the hypotheca even during the subsistence of the mortgage, to one Vaiboga Chettiar. Later on, the mortgagee instituted an action on the foot of the mortgage in O.S. No. 457 of 1939 and secured a mortgage decree therein. In the said mortgage decree Vaiboga Chettiar was made a party. It appears, however, from the record that he has been exonerated, but it is not clear as to why he was exonerated. This Court, however, had occasion to interpret the scope of such exoneration in A.A.O. No. 53 of 1957. ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Gajendran and ors. Vs. the Management of Sri Gandiban Bus Service ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ392
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. These Writ Appeals from the common order of our learned brother Srinivasan, J , on two writ petitions for certiorari arise out of proceedings before the Labour Court, Madras, under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, Central Act XI of 1948 The workers under two transport services, Sri Gandiban Bus Service and Sri Shanmughananda Bus Service through the Secretary, Chingleput District Motor Workers Union, filed applications under the Minimum Wages Act asking for directions by the Labour Court for the payment of the difference in wages payable to the workers of the two bus services There was considerable delay in filing the petitions, and applications were filed for condonation of the delay The period for which condonation was claimed ranged from 12 to 165 months, while an application under the Act has to be made within six months of the day when the wages became due The claim against Sri Gandiban Bus Service comes to about Rs. 2,63,260 and the claim against Sri Shan...
Tag this Judgment!Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad407; [1969(18)FLR144]; (1969)IILLJ154Mad; (1969)1MLJ90
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The second respondent in this writ petition, K. Rajagopalan, made a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court. Madras for the award of RE 45, representing additional bonus of half a month's basic wages for the year 1960-61 and a further sum of Rs. 122-50 being the proportionate bonus for seven months' service which he had put under the management in 1963-64. The management in question is, the Kumbakonam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. The Labour Court held both the claims to be established, and ordered payment of the amount of Rs. 167-50. The petitioner who is the management has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the above order of the Labour Court.2. So far as the payment of Rs. 45 is concerned, though objection was taken for payment of the amount, in the affidavit of the writ petitioned when the writ petition is taken up today for hearing, lea...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharama Iyengar Vs. Veeraraghava Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ127
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal filed by the judgement -debtor arises out of an application , E.A.No. 440 of 1965, which he filed under Order 21 , Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code , to set aside a sale on the ground of alleged irregularity and illegality. The properties are wet lands in Chidambaram Taluk of an extent of 2 acres 63 cents, but they were subject to a mortgage of Rs 19,500. Some other properties 2 acres 63 cents, were included in the mortgage, though we do no have any precise estimate of the relative values of those properties and the lands in question.2. The last property was put up for sale on three successive occasions and was only on the last occasions they were sold for Rs. 795 subject to the encumbrance Rs. 19,500. This therefore works out to the sale price of about Rs. 75 per cent., the encumbrance of judgment-debtor's contention is that the lands would be worthy's Rs. 100 per cent and therefore even subject to the mortgage, the lands should have fetched the price ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Easwaran Vs. Sixth Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1968
Reported in: [1969]72ITR263(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking a rule under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Sixth Income-tax Officer, Circle II, Coimbatore, the respondent herein, in the nature of a writ of prohibition or such other appropriate writ restraining him from making any assessment pursuant to the notice dated September 11, 1964, issued by him under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The relevant facts may be noted. In or about August 27, 1946, the petitioner's father and three others conjointly purchased lands of an extent of 8 acres 56 cents for a sum and consideration of Rs. 1,00,000. The purchase money was contributed in unequal proportion ; but the petitioner's father, however, paid one-fifth of the same. Thereafter, one of the members assigned his undivided interest in the lands to two others, thus enabling five persons, including the petitioner's father, to be the joint owners of the same. The petitioner's father died on November 11, 1956, and the petitioner became...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »