Chennai Court March 1970 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.
Oveekee Textiles Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC439(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions common questions of law arise. It was agreed that it is sufficient to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1966, as the relevant facts in the other cases are similar to those stated in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1966. Mr. Srinivasan addressed arguments and it was conceded that the said arguments may be adopted as common arguments, as common contentions arise in the other writ petitions as well. We shall, however, refer to certain peculiar features in some amongst the petitions before us in the course of our judgment.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1966 were as follows: The petitioners, a partnership firm, were doing business in textiles, mostly art silk and handloom goods. The petitioners are both importers and exporters. In connection with certain exports made by them they were able to secure certain import licences, which enabled them to import art silk. It is common ground that such art silk yarn imported was t...
A. Arunagiri Vs. S.P. Rathinasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ220
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is unfortunately not represented before me. The petitioner obtained an ex parte order of eviction and pursuant thereto took possession of the property from the respondent. The respondent, however, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and was successful. Basing on the observations in Raso Moopanar V. Ramamurthi Iyer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, the respondent sought re-delivery of the property from the petitioner which the Court below directed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.2. The contention pf Mr. Venkataraman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio in Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthi Iyer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in Mayilsami Gounder v. Mummoorthi Chettiar C.R.P. No. 439 of 1967, by a Division Bench of this C...
The Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ422
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appeal by the defendants in O.S. No. 46 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Nagapattinam, against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam upholding the claim of the respondent-plaintiff K. Sidhdhivinayaga Mudaliar that he is the hereditary trusee of the temples of Sri Venugopalaswami and Sri Ramaswamiperumal at Madapuram, hereinafter referred to as the suit temples, and setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Thanjavur.2. The several prior proceedings with regard to the suit temples are relevant in deciding the claim of the respondent-plaintiff. The suit temples are ancient temples. It appears from the order, Exhibit A-5 that the earliest document in which the suit temples find a place is the Paimash Account for fasli 1239, which contains an entry sh...
S. Ramaswamy Velar and anr. Vs. V. Pidaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ453
S. Maharajan, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. No. 28 of 1961. In A.S. No 564 of 1963 the plaintiffs are the appellants, whereas in A.S. No. 634 of 1963 defendants 2 to 10 are the appellants.2. The suit out of which the appeals arise, was instituted by plaintiffs 1 and 2 for cancellation of the order dated 22nd November, 1960 of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Chartiable Endowments, Madras, in Appeal No. 36 of 1960 on his file and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the hereditary trustees of three temples, namely, Karuppannaswami, Kannimar Amman and Ayyanar temples in Anaiyur Village, Madurai taluk.3. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, was not made a party to the action. Defendants 2 to 4, who were appointed by the Commissioner as trustees of Karuppannaswami temple, and defendants 5 to 7, who were appointed by the Commissioner as trustees of Kannimar Amman temple and...
C.P. Gnanasambandam Vs. Tamilnad Transports (Coimbatore) Private Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1970
Reported in: [1971]41CompCas26(Mad)
Palaniswamy, J.1. In the year 1960, P.K. Palaniappa Gounder, the second respondent in both these petitions, promoted two private companies going by the name of Sambandam Engineering Works Private Ltd. and Tamil Nad Transports (Coimbatore) Private Ltd., which may, for the sake of convenience, be hereinafter referred to as the ' engineering company ' and' transport company ', respectively. The petitioner in both these petitions is the son of the second respondent by his first wife. The third respondent in both these petitions is one Kathiresan, son-in-law of the second respondent. In the engineering company, out of the 84 shares, the petitioner owns 21 shares. In the transport company the petitioner owns 40 out of 1,660 shares. The other shares in the two companies are held by respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the second wife of the second respondent and her children and some other close relations. The petitioner has taken out Company Petition No. 57 of 1969 under Sections 433(b) and 439(c) of t...
P.R. Gajapathy Naidu and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1970
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ343
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioners herein are owners of a cocoanut garden bearing R.S.No. 3939 of Tondiarpet of an extent of 5 cawnies 15 grounds 354 square feet. The Collector of Madras by an order dated 3rd March, 1944, acting under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules requisitioned the said cocoanut garden for securing the efficient prosecution of the war. Subsequently after the World War was over the petitioners had been repeatedly requesting the respondents herein for release of the cocoanut garden and the respondents not having released the said property they have filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to release to the petitioners the lands in R.S.No. 3939 in Tondiarpet, Madras, measuring 135 grounds and 354 square feet from requisition.2. I have already referred to the fact that the order of the Collector dated 3rd March, 1944, was passed under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. Sub-rule (1) of th...
L.V. Veeri Chettiar and anr. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Bombay
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad155; [1970]26STC579(Mad)
1. Thiru L. V. Veeri Chettiar and his minor son V. Shamugham, the petitioners herein, formed themselves in to an association of persons in the year 1961 for carrying on the business of manufacture of handloom and powerloom cloths. They adopted the trading style of 'Messrs. Shamugham textiles' and their factory was set up in Vembadithalam, Salem Dt. The petitioners later concerned themselves in the manufacture of readymade garments and were exporting such garments, art silk fabric and pure silk zari embroidered sarees, all of which came under the category of handloom cloth and handicrafts within the meaning of the Export Promotion Scheme for handicrafts and handloom cloths initiated by the Government of India. Under the said scheme certain import licenses were issued to the petitioners as against the export of handloom cloths and handicrafts. It is not necessary to set out the details of the export promotion scheme, as they are not necessary. The petitioners conceded that the import lic...
V. Ponnammal and ors. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer (Xi), Enforcement Bran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC123(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioners were the quondam partners of a firm known as Ardhanari Textiles, which had its place of business at Vembadithalam, Salem District. The main commercial purpose of the firm which was started in the year 1959 and dissolved on 9th June, 1965, was to manufacture handloom and power-loom cloth. Sometime thereafter, it began manufacturing ready-made garments as well as exporting such ready-made garments, art silk fabrics, pure silk and zari embroidered sarees which came under the description of handloom cloth and handicrafts under the export promotion schemes for handicrafts. It is common ground that in connection with the export of handicrafts and ready-made garments, certain import licences were issued to the firm based on the percentage of exports effected by it. These import licences were issued in respect of art silk yarn, embellishments and sewing machinery. The petitioners concede that in respect of some of these import licences goods were imported ...
S. Sethuraman Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Owning the Southern Railway, R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ632Mad
Ramamurthy, J.1. The plaintiff who was an employee under the Southern Railway is the appellant is the second appeal. He filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 4,811-97 as representing the arrears of salary due to him after adjusting and giving credit for all the payments made. The trial court decreed the suit, but on appeal the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence the second appeal by the plaintiff. There is no dispute is any of the Courts that the amount claimed in the suit is payable except with regard to a sum of Rs. 80 towards income-tax paid by the defendant on behalf of plaintiff and an adjustment of Rs. 579-8l in relation to the contribution to the Provident Fund Account of the plaintiff and the only point argued before me is the question of limitation.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff who was a ticket collector in the Egmore Railway Station was placed under suspension on 25th February, 1954 pen...
P. Balakrishnan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ679Mad
ORDERAlagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner was employed in the firm of the 2nd respondent for a number of years. Though he says he has been in service from 1939, the Labour Court has found that, he has been in service from 1951, and I do not think that that finding can be assailed. But what happened in this case was that, according to the petitioner, he had some illness on 19.11.1965 and could not proceed to the shop. He applied for leave and got treated with local medicines and thereafter admitted himself as an in-patient into the Government Hospital, Kanchipuram on 22.11.1965 and remained there till 25.11.1965. He says that after he was discharged he was undergoing treatment at home under the doctor's instructions till 1.12.1965. He says further that he repotted for duty on 2.12.1965 and worked as usual till 3.12.1965 and that at about 7.30 P.M. on that day his services were terminated. He appealed to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »