Chennai Court August 1968 Judgments
R. Venkataswamy Naidu and anr. Vs. Parasram Naraindas Alias Purushotta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ490
K. Veeraswami, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the petitioners, who seek to revise the order of the District Munsif of Coimbatore re-opening certain concluded proceedings, in order to give advantage to the respondent of the provisions of Madras Act XIII of 1960. The respondent instituted a suit for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they had violated a condition of the lease not to build on the land. The petitioners applied under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, as extended to Coimbatore District. This application was contested but it was eventually allowed, the trial Court determining the value of the land at Rs. 7,312-50. That Court passed a preliminary decree in the suit, giving time to the petitioners to deposit the amount and directing the respondent on such deposit to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land. There was an appeal by the respondent. The result of it was the Subordinate Judge considered that the value of t...
Tag this Judgment!S. K. Veeraraghavan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR823(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - These are civil revision petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India. They are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax declining to interfere under section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with the inclusion by the Income-tax Officer of two sums in the total income for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The Commissioner in so declining to interfere mentioned two reasons. One was that the petitioner himself in a letter of his dated February 25, 1961, had admitted that there would be additional profits accrued to him in the assessment years to the extent added to the total income. The other was, though the petitioner had preferred appeals against the orders of the Income-tax Officer, they did not extend to the inclusion of the two amounts. The appeal were allowed and the Income-tax Officer was directed to proceed afresh. But the Commissioner thought that this would make no difference to the result of the petitions under section...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Auto Service Private Limited Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC111(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The assessee, who is the petitioner in each of these cases, included in the taxable turnover for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 two sums, Rs. 1,07,907.91 and Rs. 1,07,222.67. They were assessed as relating to local sales of spare parts and charged to tax at seven per cent. Within the period of limitation prescribed therefor, the petitioner applied to the assessing authority under Section 55 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act to rectify the mistake, as it was called, apparent on the face of the record of the two assessments. 2. The applications were dismissed on the ground that there was no such error. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in disposing of a revision arising out of one of the matters declined to interfere stating that this was neither a case of an order, nor a proceeding. The petitions before us have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the assessing authority to delete the two items of turnover both from t...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.S. Varadaraja Chettiar Vs. K.V.C. Chenni Veeri Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad106
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem dismissing an application under Section 3 of the Partition Act. There was an application under Section 2, but that application having been withdrawn the learned Subordinate Judge thought that the dismissal of the application under Section 3 should automatically follow.2. I am unable to accept that view. Section 2 provides for sale of the property which is not capable of partition among the shareholders. But such a sale can be ordered only at the request of the shareholders interested individually or collectively, to the extent of one moiety or upwards, in the property. Under Section 3, if a request of that kind has been made to the court, any other shareholder may apply for leave to buy at a valuation the share or shares in the property and the court shall then order a valuation of the share or shares in such manner as it may think fit and offer to sell the same to such shareholder at th...
Tag this Judgment!Kathoom Bivi Ammal and anr. Vs. Arulappa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad76
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. This appeal arises out of O. S. No. 42 of 1962. Defendants 2 and 1, who are husband and wife are the appellants. The first defendant filed O. S. No. 17 of 1962 against her step-daughter, Fareeda Beevi, her husband and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 42 of 1962 for a declaration that the two mortgage deeds executed by her step-daughter's husband, the third defendant in that suit, one in favour of her step-daughter, the first defendant in that suit, and the other in favour of the second defendant in that suit, who as already mentioned is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 42 of 1962, were void and not binding on her. The third defendant in that suit was her power-of-attorney agent and in that capacity, he executed the mortgages in favour of the first and second defendants in that suit. On the ground that they had been executed by him after she had cancelled the power-of-attorney in favour of the third defendant that suit was decreed and there was no appeal, against it either by...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees' Association V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ432Mad
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition 18 filed by the Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees' Association represented by the secretary, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the industrial tribunal, Madras (Sri S. Ganapathia Pillai) in Industrial Dispute No. 3 of 1965. The industrial tribunal was called upon on a reference by the Government of Madras under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to decide the issue whether the demand of the workers, who are the employees of the Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank, for additional bonus for the year 1962-63 was Justified, and, if so, to fix the quantum. It would appear that for the year in question, the board of directors of the bank distributed the net profits in accordance with the bylaws and rules under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, which was the Act in force for the period. The Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, came into force only subsequently, that is, fro...
Tag this Judgment!Kathoon Bivi Ammal and anr. Vs. Arulappa Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ241
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 42 of 1962. Defendants 2 and 1, who are husband and wife are the appellants. The first defendant filed O.S. No. 17 of 1962 against her step-daughter, Fareeda Beevi, her husband and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1962 for a declaration that the two mortgage deeds executed by her step-daughter's husband, the third defendant in that suit, one in favour of her stepdaughter, the first defendant in that suit, and the other in favour of the second defendant in that suit, who as already mentioned is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 42 of 1962, were void and not binding on her. The third defendant in that suit was her power-of-attorney agent and in that capacity, he executed the mortgages in favour of the first and second defendants in that suit. On the ground that they had been executed by him after she had cancelled the power-of-attorney in favour of the third defendant that suit was decreed and there was no appeal, against it either by the f...
Tag this Judgment!M.D. Sigamani Vs. Vidyasagaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ99
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, M. D. Sigamani, against the order of the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, permitting the Additional Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore, Sri R. S. Gopal to appear for accused 13, and Assistant Public Prosecutor-I for the Jail Department accused and Assistant Public Prosecutor-II for the other police accused, in C.C. 145 of 1966 on his file. The accused in the said case appear to be officials.2. So far as the appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, I do not think that any permission is required for him to appear before the District Magistrate, if the Government permit him to do so during the period he serves as Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. An Additional Public Prosecutor by virtue of his position as a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government for a specific period and for specific Courts does not cease to be an Advocate. There is no prohibition for an Advocate to a...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees Association, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ592
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank Employees Association represented by the Secretary, for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras (Sri S. Ganapatia Pillai) in I.D. No. 3 of 1965. The Industrial Tribunal was called upon, on a reference by the Government of Madras under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to decide the issue Whether the demand of the workers, who are the employees of the Coimbatore District Co-operative Central Bank, for additional bonus for the year 1962-63 was justified, and, if so, to fix the quantum. It would appear that for the year in question, the Board of Directors of the Bank distributed the net profits in accordance with the bye-laws and rules under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, which was the Act in force for the period. The Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 came into force only subsequently, that is from 1st Octo...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Haneefa Vs. Mariam Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad414; 1969CriLJ1412; (1969)1MLJ97
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. This revision petition Is filed by the husband against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Gudalur, In M. C. 143 of 1966, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 per month to his first wife the respondent herein. 2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The respondent, Mariam Bi, is the first wife of the petitioner, Mohamed Haneefa, having got married to the petitioner on 22nd May 1962. They were living as man and wife amicably for some time. Later, the petitioner married another woman. Since then, the petitioner neclected and refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal P. C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Gudalur, claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs. 50. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month mainly on the ground that under Section 488 (3), Cr. P. C. it would be just for the respondent to refuse to live with the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »