Chennai Court March 1969 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR758(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. We are of the view that the Tribunal's opinion requires no modification. It turns on whether a provision in the partition deed dated February 8, 1959, for the payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the wife of the karta of the joint family amounted to a gift dutiable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The Gift-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were divided in their view ; but the Tribunal concurred with the latter. At the instance of the Commissioner the reference is before us, the question being :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision of Rs. 50,000 made in the course of a partial partition of joint family assets was for the maintenance of the karta's wife and that it was not a gift within the meaning of Section 2(xii) read with Section 2(xxiv) of the Gift-tax Act '2. The question itself contains, in brief, the relevant facts : but, in more detail, the assessee was a ...
P. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. Thambaram Panchayat by Its Executive Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ444
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. These two batches of cases, one batch of second appeals and. another batch of civil revision petitions, can be disposed of by a common judgment as the points that arise for consideration are the same. The following facts are necessary to understand the scope of the controversy. Survey Nos. 323 and 324 together measuring an extent of 5-03 acres situated in Tambaram village, Saidapet taluk, are poramboke lands. As per G.O. No. 2114, Public Health, dated 11th June, 1938, Tambaram Town Planning scheme was sanctioned and the aforesaid two survey numbers were reserved for public purposes like erection of markets and building of shops. The District Board, Chingleput, was appointed as the responsible authority under the scheme for its due execution. Subsequently, the Tambaram Panchayat Board became the successor responsible authority for the due execution of the scheme. The period for the function of the responsible authority was extended for ten years upto 10th June, 19...
Aniline Dyes and Chemical Co. Proprietors, R.J. Mistro and Co. (P.) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ414
K.S. Palaniswami, J.1. The plaintiff, a firm doing business in dyes and chemicals : with head office at Bombay and a branch at Madras, is the appellant. On 21st March, 1959, the plaintiff's head office at Bombay consigned 12 drums of hydro sulphite of soda to self to Salt Cotaurs, Madras. The consignment was booked at Wadi Bunder at railway risk note. The consignment was loaded in wagon No. SRCS. 4976. The wagon left Wadi Bunder at 9-40 a.m. on 26th March, 1959, and arrived at Kalyan at 1-30 p.m. the same day. The wagon left Kalyan at 9-45 p.m. the same day and arrived at Poona at 2-30 p.m. on 30th March, 1959. There was a break in the journey at Poona so far as the wagon in question was concerned. The wagon was found at 6 a.m. at Poona station yard in front of what is called ' Bombay Goods Shed.' Subsequently it was sent to another line called ' Poona two line.' When the wagon was on this line, fire broke at about 8 p.m. on 31st March, 1959. The railway officials at Poona took action ...
Sarathy Brothers and anr. Vs. the Bank of India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ38
K. Veeraswami, J.1. Our judgment in the second appeal was no doubt a reversing one; but, all the same, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for grant of leave under Article 133 (1) (a) or (c) of the Constitution. Ramakrishnan, J., considered when the second appeal was posted before him in the first instance, that the value of the appeal to the appellant who is the respondent in the leave petition, would be Rs. 20,000 or more. The learned Judge was of that view having regard to the value of the property owned by the respondent and the detriment that he would suffer by the imposition of the easement claimed by the petitioner who was the plaintiff. It was on that view of the valuation, he directed that the second appeal should be heard by a Division Bench. We do not think that, for the purpose of these petitions, the valuation so fixed by the learned Judge can be taken into account. Article 133 (1) (a) speaks of the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court...
C. Venkatesalu Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Director-g ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ364
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a telephone operator on 15th October, 1952, in the Tiruchirapalli Engineering Division, Madras Circle, and confirmed in the Trivandrum Division on 1st August, 1956. At the time of his recruitment and subsequently upto 22nd December, 1959, seniority in the cadre was to be determined on the basis of the length of the service on the basis of the orders issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, O.M. No. 30-44/48 Apptt. dated 22nd June, 1949. The recruitment is on a divisional basis but the promotions seem to be on a circle basis, the seniority being counted inter se among the various officials in the various divisions on the basis of their respective seniority in that division. Under the rules that applied since 1949, as the seniority was from the date of appointment, nobody could have any grievance. But in 1959, this was changed and the seniority was made to depend upon confirmation. The result would be that a person who for instanc...
Singh (H.S.) Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1969
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ370Mad
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petition by H.S. Singh, engineer and contractor, Coimbatore, for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the preliminary and final orders of the labour court, Coimbatore, dated 16 February and 12 May 1966, respectively. Respondent 2, R. Krishnaswami Pillai, filed Civil Petition No. 905 of 1965 on the file of the labour court, Coimbatore, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the Act, claiming Rs. 1,708.02 as benefits accrued to him by reason of retrenchment of his services by the management, the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein raised a preliminary objection that respondent 2, Krishnaswami Pillai, was only a manager and not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The labour court overruled this preliminary objection by its preliminary order dated 16 February 1966 after considering the evidence of both the petitioner and respondent 2 and the documents filed by them. The petitione...
Pannalal Ratnlal Suranna Vs. Manakchand Lodha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad330; (1970)1MLJ283
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The respondent sued in the Court of the District Munsif of Salem 'or damages for alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant, who is the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the criminal case was instituted by the defendant at Pandharkavada in Maharashtra which ended in the discharge of the plaintiff. The Court below sustained its jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the suit on the ground that the summons in the prosecution was served on the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of that Court. This petition is to revise that order.2. It seems to me that the Court below took the right view. The summons is a necessary step among others in a criminal prosecution. It is no doubt true that when a complaint is filed, the Court it is that issues the summons, but it is a necessary consequence of the complaint and forms part of 'the criminal proceedings. That was the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Gokaldas v. Baldevdas, AIR 1961 Mys 188 and I find myself, wi...
Ponniah Nadar and ors. Vs. Chellian Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ526
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Kanyakumari in A.S. No. 38 of 1967 on his file remanding the suit O.S. No. 11 of 1965, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil, for trial. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on a preliminary point that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The decision was reversed by the learned District Judge, who has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The question, therefore, for decision is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The question arises under the following circumstances:The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain temple known as Bhadrakali Amman Temple and its properties constituted a public trust and for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the only constituted trustees. Earlier proceedings under Section 145, Cri...
The Management, Udipi Hindu Restaurant Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ492
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The second respondent was working as a server under the petitioner. On 3rd June, 1965, he was suspended from service pending enquiry. An enquiry was held on 23rd June, 1965 and the second respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 30th June, 1965. On 9th April, 1966, the second respondent applied to the Labour Court under Section 39-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of the benefits due to him and the Labour Court has held that a sum of Rs. 74-25 is payable to him. This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Labour Court.2. The point taken by the petitioner is that when once an employee has been either suspended or removed from service, such action might give rise to an industrial dispute which may be appropriately tried, but there can be no question of the benefits due to him to be computed under Section 33-C (2). In Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan (1963) 2 L.L.J. 89 , the Supreme Court observed as follows:I...
Somasundaram Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR668(Mad)
RAMAKRISHNAN J. - This appeal is filed by Messrs. Somansundaram Mills (Private) Limited, Coimbatore, the third defendant in O. S. No. 182 of 1961, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The plaintiff, the principal respondent in this appeal as the Union of India, represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax Madras. The first defendant is a partnership firm represented by its partners, Somasundaram Chettiar and Kalaraja Chettiar. One Arunachalam Chettiar is the second defendant. The point in issue in this appeal is the nature of the priority to be given to the claims of the State over the claims of other money creditors.The facts necessary for the consideration of the present appeal can now be set down briefly. For recovery of arrears of income-tax due by the first and second defendants to the income-tax department seven certificates were issued under section 46 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the Collector of Coimbatore, by the authorities of the income...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »