Chennai Court September 1968 Judgments
S. Venkataramanaswami Ayyar Vs. S. Abdul Wahab
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad473; (1969)1MLJ122
M. Natesan, J.1. This Second Appeal has been filed, by the defendant in a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,562-50 as arrears of rent due in respect of the defendant's tenancy of a building.2. The defendant has been a tenant of the building in question, except for two upstairs rooms, for a number of years, running a coffee and meals hotel in the premises. It is the common case of the parties that the agreed rent till 8th February, 1960, was Rs. 112-50 per month. There is evidence on record that, in the middle of 1959 itself, the plaintiff had been seeking to evict the defendant and had been refusing to receive the rent at the rate of Rs. 112-50 per month. The plaintiff would have it that it was not his intention to get an enhanced rent, but to secure vacant possession of the building for the purpose of repairs and improvements.It is the plaintiff's case that, on 8th February, 1960, there was an agreement between him and the defendant at the intercession of one Natesan Pillai, P. W. 2...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkataramanaswami Ayyar Vs. S. Abdul Wahab (No. (2))
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ137
M. Natesan, J.1. This Revision Petition is under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) and has been withdrawn to this Court for disposal along with S.A. No. 787 of 1965 Since reported in (1969) 1 M.L.J. 122 as the two are connected. The second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, the claim being based on an agreement by the tenant to the increase of rent from Rs. 112.50 to Rs. 200 per month from Masi 1960. The tenant contended that there was no concluded contract to increase the rent to Rs. 200 per month. The District Munsif, Karur, who is also the Rent Controller under the Act, tried the suit for arrears of rent and the application for eviction of the tenant together, and, by consent of the parties, the evidence recorded in the suit was treated as evidence in the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. Eviction was sought on the basis that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The agreement, accord...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P) Ltd. by Managing Director, T.S. Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad82; [1971(22)FLR105]
ORDERKailasam, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by Messrs T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P) Ltd., by its Managing Director, Sri T. S. Krishna. The third respondent was employed as an apprentice in the company from 1-5-1964 under order dated 29-4-1964 for a specific period of twelve months. After the period of apprenticeship, the third respondent was taken as a probationer under a fresh contract of service as a Prabationary Technical Assistant with effect from 1-5-1965. There was an enquiry regarding the misconduct of the third respondent, and his probation was terminated by an order dated 3-2-1968. The Labour Officer, Tirunelveli, sent a conciliation report on 31-12-1966 to the Government and on consideration thereof, the Government passed its order dated 24-2-1967 declining to make a reference. Subsequently, on 6-7-1967 the Government referred the matter for adjudication.2. In these petitions the main contention that is raised is that Section 2-A o the Industrial Disputes Act...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Varaguna Rama Pandian and ors. Vs. Chelladurai Alias Thiruvaras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ443
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The only substantial point that arises in the appeal is one of limitation. The Sivagiri estate was notified and taken over with effect from 3rd January, 1951, under the provisions of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the illegitimate sons of the principal landholder, applied by O.P. No. 167 of 4951 for maintenance. The principal landholder, who was the only party impleaded, opposed the claim under Section 42, and successfully. Against the order of the Tribunal dated 9th August, 1954, rejecting the claim, the respondents filed S. T. A. No. 138 of 1954, which was eventuallv allowed by this Court on 25th. January, 1960. In the meantime, on 16th August, 1955, the principal landholder died and his legal representatives were brought on record in the appeal. This Court was of the view that the respondents in view of a special custom, were entitled to maintenance. See Chelladorai v. Chinnathambiar I.L.R. : AIR1961Mad42 . On that view of the right of the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd. by Managing Director T.S. Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ214
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by Messrs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd., by its Managing Director, Sri T. S. Krishna. The thirds Respondent was employed as an apprentice in the company from 1st May, 1964 under order dated 29th April, 1964 for a specific period of twelve months. After the period of apprenticeship, the third respondent was taken as a probationer under a fresh contract of service as a Probationary Technical Assistant with effect from 1st May, 1965. There was an enquiry regarding the misconduct of the third respondent, and his probation was terminated by an order dated 3rd February, 1906. The Labour Officer, Tirunelveli, sent a conciliation report on 31st December, 1966 to the Government and on consideration thereof, the Government passed its order dated 24th February, 1967 declining to make a reference. Subsequently, on 6th July, 1967 the Government referred the matter for adjudication.2. In these petitions the main contention that...
Tag this Judgment!C.V. Sadasiva Rao, Official Receiver, Sub-court Vs. Government of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ605
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is to revise the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter relates to the assessment year 1964-65. On a return filed by the Receiver in O. S. No. 1 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Vellore, which was for partition of family properties between three brothers, A. R. Kuppuswami Goundar, A. R. Nachiappa Goundar and A. R. Thangavelu Goundar, the total income of the estate was determined at Rs. 7,798 and a tax of Rs. 489-70 was imposed. The assessee's appeals having failed, this revision comes up before us.2. Two points appear to have been urged on behalf of the assessee, neither of which found acceptance below. One of them related to the competence of the Receiver to file a return and represent the three brothers and the other related to the applicability of Section 29 (1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. On the first ground the Tribunal took the view, agreeing with the Revenue, that the ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Vs. Sadasiva Rao, Official Receiver V. Government of Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR747(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This petition is to revise the order of the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The matter relates to the assessment year 1964-65. On a return filed by the receiver in O.S. NO. 1 of 1957 on the file of the court of the subordinate judge at Vellore, which was for partition of family properties between three brothers A. E. Kuppuswamy Gounder, A. E. Nachiappa Gounder and A. E. Thangavelu Gounder, the total income of the estate was determined at Rs. 7,798 and a tax of Rs. 489.70 was imposed. The assessees appeal having failed, this revision comes up before us.Two points appear to have been urged on behalf of the assessee, neither of which found acceptance below. One of them related to the competence of the receiver to file a return and represent the three brothers and the other related to the applicability of section 29(1) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. On the first ground the Tribunal took the view, agreeing with the revenue, that the language of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.S. Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ345
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition under Sections 7 to 10 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with clause 17 of the Letters Patent, for appointing the petitioner herein as the guardian of his minor son and enabling the petitioner to mortgage a particular item of property belonging to the minor, for fixing the maintenance of the minor and also the remuneration of the petitioner. It is stated that the properties which belong to the minor have been settled on the minor by his paternal grandfather under deeds of settlement, dated 19th July, 1955 and 7th March, 1962.2. The first question for consideration is whether this petition for appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of his minor son is maintainable at all. There are two decisions of this Court, both of them by Benches, holding that under the Hindu Law, a father is the guardian of his minor son and he does not require any order from any Court appointing him or declaring him as the guardian of his minor son and cons...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Doraiswami Nadar (Died) and ors. Vs. Vinayaka Ratnaswami Nadar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ392
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The order of the Court below appears to be clearly wrong. The first appellant who was the plaintiff-alienee of the properties comprised in Schedule 1 to the plaint sued for partition and separate possession thereof, impleading the two sons of the late Chokkalinga Nadar and his two widows as well as some alienees. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 26th November, 1954, by compromise. The application for passing a final decree was made on 30th July, 1960 and 8th December, 1960. The Subordinate Judge took the view that the application was out of time and dismissed it. Curiously he also dismissed the suit.2. The reason for the order of the Court below is based on clause 3 of the preliminary decree which is:3. That the parties shall be at liberty to apply for final decree but since the subject-matter of the several items of properties which are in the possession of various defendants herein is also the subject-matter of the two appeals against the decrees o...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad133; [1969]73ITR571(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a consolidated reference relating to assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55. The assessee has been described to be a public limited company, carrying on business in General Insurance. In respect o the said years, the Income-tax Officer originally allowed rebates in the sums of Rs. 4,989-84 and of Rs. 7708-11-0 at the rate of one anna in the rupee on the undistributed profits of the company. On 8-3-1958 the Income-tax Officer, however, passed orders under Section 23-A (1) by which the entire undistributed profits were deemed to have been distributed as dividends to the shareholders. As a consequence, the assessment orders were reopened under Section 34 with the result the rebates granted earlier were withdrawn. The assessee was unsuccessful before the Revenue as well as the Tribunal in his challenge as to the propriety of the order. The Tribunal's view was that Section 23-A created a fiction in respect of distribution of deemed dividends and it was, therefore, cle...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »