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 Income-tax Vs. South India Flour Mills Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR147(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The assessee, an incorporated private limited company, was carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of flour such as maida, atta, sooji, etc. By an agreement dated April 25, 1959, with a Delhi company known as Hindustan Cold Stores and Refrigeration Private Ltd., the assessee undertook to lend a sum of Rs. 11-50 lakhs to the Delhi company to enable them to erect a flour milling plant at Madras in the name and style of Hindustan Roll Flour Mills for the manufacture of maida, atta, sooji, etc. In consideration of the amount so advanced or to be advanced by the assessee to the Delhi company, the latter agreed to pay interest on the borrowing at 9 per cent. per annum and also a commission of 1 per cent, for a period of 7 years on all its sales of wheat products at Madras. The agreement, at all material times, was understood as only by which the assessee lent the amount for interest and for the due repayment of the principal and interest borrowed by the Delhi ...
The Union of India (Uoi) Owning the North Eastern Railway by Its Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ15
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The only point involved in this revision petition is a very short question of limitation relating to Section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.2. The admitted facts are that the consignor booked the goods in question, for transit by the Railway, on 28th August, 1963, and delivered the goods for such transit at Erode, the destination being Ahimanpur in North India. We have no means of ascertaining whether the goods ever reached the destination, Ahimanpur, or not. But the consignor, finding that the consignee never reported delivery, wrote a letter on 31st December, 1963 to the Station Master at Ahimanpur, enclosing the relevant railway receipt, and asking that Station Master to re-book the goods back to Erode. This letter was never acknowledged by the Station Master, and, apparently, no action was taken thereon. On 11th April, 1964 and 25th April, 1964, the consignor wrote further letters to the same Officer, but they were in vain. Ultimately, on 14th May,...
The Thiruchankattankudi Tenants Co-operative Farming Society by Its Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ18
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam by which he rejected the defendant's contention that the suit does not lie without leave of the Registrar, in view of Section 89 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The respondent who is the plaintiff sued the petitioner Co-operative Farming Society, for recovery of a large sum of money as arrears of rent due from it for Faslis 1373 and 1374. The society is one registered under and governed by the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The basis for the claim was, as stated in the plaint, that the plaintiff had leased out to the society an extent of 305 acres on a rental of 3029 kalams of paddy and 458 bundels of straw per year, and that the defendant having entered into possession failed to pay the arrears of rent. It was also mentioned that eviction proceedings were instituted against the society before the Authorised Officer. While those procee...
V. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. Thulasi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ263
M. Natesan, J.1. The 1st defendant in a suit for recovery of damages caused to an auto-rickshaw on account of collision with his car, has preferred this second appeal. The 2nd defendant was the 1st defendant's driver. He was driving the car in the course of employment under the 1st defendant.2. The plaintiff was plying the auto-rickshaw for hire and her son who has given evidence as P.W. 1 was driving the said auto-rickshaw at the time of the accident. The Courts below have concurred in finding that the collision by which the auto-rickshaw was damaged was due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st defendant's driver. Damages have been assessed by the Courts below at a sum of Rs. 1,200. The finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1st defendant's driver and the quantum of damages assessed are findings of fact, not open to impeachment in second appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, in assessing the damages, the Courts bel...
V. Sambandam Vs. V. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ473
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The purported application is claimed to have been filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act by a beneficiary under a will for the removal of an executor appointed under the terms of the will. The question for consideration is one of procedure to be followed on the Original Side of this Court the applicant herein contending that Section 301 authorises him to move this Court for the removal of an executor by means of an application as distinct from an original petition. On the other hand, the office takes the view, based upon Order 2, Rule 1 and Order 14, Rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court, 1956, that when a prayer is made under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, it should be made in the form of a petition only and not by an application, because it constitutes commencement of fresh proceedings, in relation to the subject-matter of the request.2. Mr. Anantarama Mudaliar, learned Counsel for the applicant, strongly relies on the use of the word '...
Workmen of V.M. Bus Service Vs. Labour Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1969
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ95Mad
Alagiriswami, J.1. One Radhakrishnan, a member of the petitioner union, was a conductor under the second respondent. He was removed from service on the ground that he had made collections without issuing tickets. He offered some explanation, to which it is not necessary to refer. The union approached the first respondent, labour officer, for undertaking conciliation proceedings and the first respondent informed the petitioner-union that, as there was no violation of principles of natural justice, no industrial dispute was apprehended. This has been interpreted by the petitioner-union as a refusal by the first respondent to discharge his duties and, therefore, a writ of mandamus has been prayed for.2. Under Section 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 'Where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescr...
The Workmen of V.M. Bus Service, Represented by the Motor Thozhilalar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ221
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. One Radhakrishnan, a member of the petitioner-Union, was a conductor under the second respondent. He was removed from service on the ground that he had made collections without issuing tickets. He offered some explanation, to which it is not necessary to refer. The Union approached the first respondent, Labour Officer, for undertaking conciliation proceedings and the first respondent informed the petitioner-Union that, as there was no violation of principles of natural justice, no industrial dispute was apprehended. This has been interpreted by the petitioner -Union as a refusal by the first respondent to discharge his duties and, therefore, a writ of mandamus has been prayed for.2. Under Section 12 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the Conciliation Officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. V.A.M. Ayya Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1969
Reported in: [1969]73ITR761(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This reference involves rather a peculiar question. The assessee was a partner of a firm under the name and style of V.A.M. Rathinam Brothers, which carried on business at Virudhunagar. It had nine partners with four minors admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessee had a third share in the profits of the firm as well as its liabilities. By a deed dated March 31. 1958, the firm was reconstituted with effect from January 31 of that year. By that time, one of the minors having become a major, he was taken as a full-fledged partner and the remaining minors continued to have the benefits of the partnership. One further change which is important for the reference was that the assessee was allotted a one-ninth share out of the one-third share and the balance of two-ninths share was distributed as between two other partners. The Gift-tax Officer treated the distribution of the two-ninths share as a gift, which was valued at Rs. 52,518 and charged to gift-tax. ...
M. Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ431
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The substance of the prosecution is that the petitioner himself using his position as President and Treasurer of the society had made false entry in the consolidated loan application dated 2-9-1961, Ex. P. 8. as though a loan for Rs. 500 had been applied for by one Munsif Chin-nappa Mudali and in that application affixed his left hand thumb impression as though it is the thumb impression of Munsif Chinnappa Mudali and then further in the solvency certificate relating thereto namely, Ex. P. 7, he had affixed his own thumb impression as though it was the thumb impression of Chinnappa Mudali, P. W. 1. He had also falsely endorsed in his own handwriting that those thumb impressions were the impressions of P. W. 1. The petitioner after getting the funds from the Co-operative Central Bank, showed a false disbursement in favour of P. W. 1 by himself falsely affixing the left hand thumb impression of P. W. 1 in Exs. A 16 and A 17 which are the loan disbursement sheet ...
The Management of Xavier Contractor Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ219
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petition by the Management of Xavier, Contractor, Anaimudi Estate for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D. No. 48 of 1965 on its file. The Government of Madras by G.O. Ms. No. 5130, Industries, Labour and Co-operation (Labour), dated 2nd November, 1965 referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Coimbatore, an alleged industrial dispute between the management of Xavier and its workmen sponsored by the Secretary, Artisan Worker's Union, Valparai. The questions referred to were : Whether the non-employment of Sri V. L. Francis mason by Sri M. R. Xavier, Contractor, Anaimudi estate Mudis Post, is justified if not to what relief he would be entitled and to compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed. The Labour Court found that the dispute in the case was an industrial dispute, that V. L. Francis was in the employment of M. R. Xavier, Contractor for 15 years and was not a ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »