Chennai Court August 1968 Judgments
Mrs. Kamalam Paul Vs. G.H. Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ344
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.P. No. 257 of 1967 in O.S. No. 219 of 1956. In settling the terms of the proclamation of sale of the hypotheca, the lower Court made the following order.:Amin's value Rs. 20,000; Decree-holder's value Rs. 17,000; Judgment-debtor's value Rs. 50,000. Encumbrance nil. Upset price Rs. 20,000.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fixation of the upset price at Rs. 20,000 by the lower Court is purely arbitrary and not guided by any exercise of judicial discretion and that the Court should have fixed the upset price at Rs. 50,000.3. I see no question of jurisdiction nor any mistake of law which vitiates the order of the lower Court. Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the terms of the proclamation shall specify the value of the property as stated (i) by the decree-holder and (ii) by the judgment-debtor. That has been done in this case and thu...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the K.C.P. Ltd., Central Workshop, Madras 19 Vs. Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad370; [1969(18)FLR52]
ORDERKailasam, J. 1. This petition is filed by the management of K. C. P. Ltd., Central Workshop, Tiruvottiyur, for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras in I. D. No. 57 of 196 and to quash the award dated 16-2-1967 and published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 22-3-1967. 2. The petitioner-company is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In the year 1943, the Company purchased a sugar factory at Vuyyuru as a going concern. In 1955, the company started an engineering workshop known as the Central Workshop at Tiruvottiyur. In 1958, the company commissioned a cement factory all Macherla known as the Ramakrishna Cement Factory. According to the petitioner, the three undertakings of the company were always treated as different entities. The workmen of the three units were treated separately regarding the terms and conditions of service, the scales of pay, payment of bonus and other perquisites. I...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., thenkarai, Peria Kutam, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad374; [1969(18)FLR151]; (1969)IILLJ141Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. This petition is filed by the Management of the Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd. aggrieved against the order of the second respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. in a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (Act XIV of 1947). The worker in question, first respondent, who filed the claim petition, was employed as a conductor. It is common ground that he was dismissed from service by the management on 21-11-1961, for the reasons stated in the order of dismissal (Ex. M. 6): 'He was dismissed from service as He meddled with the brake tube of the bus MDU 6590 which caused serious accident and damage to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-.' The claim of the worker was that during the year 1959-61, the Management had been paying bonus to its employees at the rate of three months salary. Therefore, notwithstanding that he had been dismissed from service on 21-11-1961, he was entitled to bonus which in his case came to Rs. 135. There...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Sokkalal Ramsait Factory Private Limited by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ366
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by Messrs. T.P. Sokkalal Ramsait Factory (Private) Limited, Mukkudal, by its Managing Partner for the issue of a writ of certiorari to declare as ultra vires the notification of the Government of Madras by the Secretary, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing, Fort St. George, published in the Fort St. George Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 31st May, 1968, G.O. Ms. No. 2098, Industries, Labour and Housing (Labour) II--I No. 2448 of 1968 and to quash the same.2. The notification published on 31st May, 1968, and which provides that it shall come into force on the 30th May, 1968, is challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional. It is contended that the respondent has no power to fix the minimum wage retrospectively even by a day, and inasmuch as the impugned notification purports to do so, it is illegal and liable to be struck down. It is further contended that the fixation of scales of wages for types of beedies alone without tak...
Tag this Judgment!Kannaiyan and anr. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Erode and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad320
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The scope ot these writ petitions is a limited one. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4407 of 1965 was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his two brothers and father. This joint Hindu family had a number of power-looms in their possession, which they were using for the purpose of weaving. On 2nd May, 1963, they effected a partition, and the petitioner was allotted for his share four of these power-looms. Originally, the licence for these power-looms stood in the name of the father, and he was paying the excise duty levied on cotton fabrics produced by the power-looms. After the partition, the licence for the four power-looms, which were allotted to the petitioner's share, was transferred to his name by the authorities. On 26th June, 1964, the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode, the first respondent herein, stating that, since he had acquired the aforesaid four looms from his father, who was the l...
Tag this Judgment!Kannaiyan and anr. Vs. the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ277
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The scope of these writ petitions is a limited one. The petitioner in W.P. No. 4407 of 1965 was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his two brothers and father. This joint Hindu family had a number of power-looms in their possession, which they were using for the purpose of weaving. On 2nd May, 1963, they effected a partition, and the petitioner was allotted for his share four of these power-looms. Originally, the licence for these power-looms stood in the name of the father, and be was paying the excise duty levied on cotton fabrics produced by the power-looms. After the partition, the licence for the four power-looms, which were allotted to the petitioner's share, was transferred to his name by the authorities. On 26th June, 1964, the petitioner received a notice from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Erode, the first respondent herein, stating that, since he had acquired the aforesaid four looms from his father, who was the lic...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Natarajan Engineering Works Vs. Govindaswami Naicker ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ211
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In certain conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the respective parties were the Management of Natarajan Engineering Works (appellant), and an individual worker named Govindaswami Naicker. Ultimately, in the course of the conciliation proceedings, a settlement of ' the matters in dispute ' was reported to the Conciliation Officer, and a memorandum of the settlement was drawn up under the terms of Section 12, Sub-clause (3) of the Act. Section 12, Sub-clause (3) requires that such a memorandum must be ' signed by the parties to the dispute.'2. It appears that, throughout the course of these conciliation proceedings till the signing of this memorandum, the appellant firm was represented by its Works Manager, who is the actual signatory on behalf of the firm in the memorandum of settlement. It is not denied before us by the appellant firm, that it did permit its Works Manager to represent the firm in the conciliation pro...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalakshmi Textile Mills, Pasumalai Vs. Government of Madras, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad273; [1969(18)FLR146]; (1969)IILLJ133Mad
ORDERKailasam, J.1. W. P. No. 892 of 1968 is filed by Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills, Pasumalai, Madurai, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of Government of Madras in 152935/Lab.A.2/67-2 I.L.H. dated 8-2-1968, declining to exempt the petitioner-mills from payment of minimum bonus for the year 1965-66 and quashing the said order. W. P. No. 893 of 1968 is by the same petitioner for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Madras represented by the Secretary, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing to grant the exemption as prayed for by the petitioner in its application dated 24-11-1967 for a partial exemption under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. As the two writ petitions raise the same question, they will be dealt with together. According to the petitioner-mills the mills incurred a loss of Rs. 13,58,788.68 for the year 1965. On 26-9-1966, the petitioner applied under Section 36 of the Payment of Bonus Ac...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Narasimier and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]73ITR257(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This reference, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, relates to the assessment year 1961-62, and the question is;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of Rs. 6,489 under Section 12 instead of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is justified in law '2. At the relevant time, the assessee was a firm of partnership carrying on a business of running a powerloom factory at Madurai with 12 power-looms. The assessee manufactured handloom cloth for a number of years and for that purpose he used fixed assets consisting of machinery and buildings at No. 28, Chairman Muthuramier Road, Madurai. The business was carried on up to April 12, 1954, and thereafter the manufacturing was stopped, with the result that the machinery and buildings were lying idle. With effect from November 1, 1956, the powerlooms were, however, commissioned again to work by one Radhakrishnier under the terms of an agreement dated June 13, 1957...
Tag this Judgment!icco Engineers Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC71(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. There was a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-10, and also while presenting the appeal the second proviso to Section 31(1) was not complied with. Later on the admitted tax was paid. But it appears on a wrong view of the matter the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found that the appeal was out of time and dismissed it, stating that there was no sufficient cause for the delay.2. We do not think that the second proviso could be mixed up with or both the provisos could be read into one another. They provide for two separate matters. If and when the admitted tax is fully paid the appeal becomes entertainable. Nevertheless, the question of limitation may arise. In that event the relevant proviso will be the first one which enables the officer in case of sufficient cause for the delay to excuse the delay. In the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause.3. The writ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »