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.
V. Sambandam and anr. Vs. S.T.S.V. Kandasami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ368
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is to set aside an order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Mayuram, declining to give a direction for delivery of accounts and records of Sri Subramaniswami Koil Sola, Perunthottam, Sirkali Taluk, to the two of the three trustees who were the applicants before him. The third respondent was impleaded in the application, as he would not join with the other trustees, but in fact resisted delivery of the records and accounts. On a curious view, which we do not accept as correct, of Section 101 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the First Class Magistrate held that, in the absence of a certificate, there could not be delivery of the records and accounts of the temple. When the petition came up before Alagiriswami, J., he considered that Murugesa Mudaliar v. Ramachandran (1967) 1 M.L.J. 379, required re-consideration. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., in that case was of the view that the ...
Hindustan Lever Ltd., Tiruchirapalli Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad478; [1971(21)FLR24]; (1970)IILLJ201Mad; (1970)1MLJ473
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appeal is directed against an order of Kailasam, J., who declined to interfere 'with an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. 2. Two workmen of the appellant, after a domestic enquiry on a charge framed against them, were dismissed from service, and the dispute relating to it between the dismissed workmen and the Management was the subject-matter of a reference to the Presiding officer. He mentioned three grounds for characterising the domestic enquiry as biased and, therefore, vitiated by non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The first ground was that before framing the charge, the explanation of the delinquent workmen ought to have, been asked for Kailasam, J., rightly considered that this was not a proper ground. The third ground also is not of any substance. It was that during the examination of the defence, one more witness for the prosecution was interposed. We have examined this matter but find that there was no prejudice an...
Syed Rabia Beevi Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ700
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. According to the final statement published under Section 12. the surplus of the petitioner's holding was declared to standard acres 4-63. Based on this final statement a notification under Section 18 (1) followed which was published in the Gazette in August, 1966. On 7th November, 1967, the authorised officer notified the petitioner that the Government had revised the ratio of conversion of ordinary acres and therefore, the petitioner's holding amounted to 40-96 standard acres and that she should surrender a further extent of 4-735 standard acres. Objections were raised to this revision, but they were overruled. The officer stated that he was competent to revise under the third proviso to Section 10 (4). It is in these circumstances this petition has been taken out for prohibition.2. We think that the petition is well-founded. The proviso to Section 10 (4) has no relevance whatever to the instant situation. Section 96 no doubt contemplates conversion of one kind o...
Workmen of Ruby Works Ltd. Vs. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1970
Reported in: (1970)IILLJ204Mad
Ismail, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 24th February, 1968, and made in Industrial Dispute No. 49 of 1966 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras. On 29th September, 1965, the management served a memo of charge on the workers in question and the substance of the charge was that they hooted and mocked at Messrs. Alex Manuel, personnel officer, J. Mathew, production in-charge, and O.P. Nambiar, security officer, when they were going out of the factory on 28th September, 1965, at about 5 p.m. on their way to home by uttering abusive, false, malicious and vulgar slogans from the main gate of the factory till the Thangam Soda bus stop and that they induced other workers of the factory also, who were there striking work, to do similar acts. The charge memo indicated that such a conduct was misconduct under Rule 13 (xxxiii) and (xxxvii) and the workmen concerned were required to submit their explanation. Ultima...
M. Mohamed Salam Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1970
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ143; [1970]26STC163(Mad)
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These are two batches of petitions for mandamus for refund of Central sales tax paid. The relief is sought on the ground that the payment had been made under a mistake of law. In three of the petitions, in which Mohamed Salam was the assessee, the tax paid related to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. In respect of the second year, there was a balance of Rs. 1,400 in arrears. When this was sought to be collected by the revenue, the assessee served on it a lawyer's notice that, in view of State of Mysore v. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231, the tax charged on inter-State sales was illegal and followed it up by filing the petitions in this court for direction to refund the tax already paid and also for prohibition from collecting the balance. In the second batch, Ashok Leyland Ltd., which is the common petitioner, seeks refund of Central sales tax paid for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 on the quantum of excise duty include...
O.M.S.S. Sivamurugan Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer Viii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC68(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a registered dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 doing business in tamarind and soap-nut powder. He is also a registered dealer under Section 7(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He reported a gross turnover of Rs. 30,465.99 and a taxable turnover of Rs. 19,688.95 in his return in Form A-l for the year 1967-68. He contended that the turnover of Rs. 10,777.04 out of the gross turnover related to outside State sales, the goods having been purchased and sold in Mysore State. The said return filed by the petitioner was found to be correct by the assessing authority after check of his accounts. The assessing authority however found that the net turnover of Rs. 19,688.95 included a turnover of Rs. 7,202.90 being the sales turnover of goods purchased in Mysore State against 'C' form declarations and sold within the State of Madras. Since the petitioner had opted to pay the tax under Section 7, the tax payable under Section 3(...
Sevayi Ammal Vs. M. Somasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ77
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. The Athankudi Udayars' Estate in Ramanathapuram District, which consisted of many villages, was owned by four branches. One member in one such branch was adjudged an insolvent. The Official Receiver in whom his share vested, filed O.S. No. 70 of 1938 in the Sub-Court, Devakottai, for administration. The members of the other three branches were parties to this suit. Preliminary nary decree for partition was passed and the properties were under the management of one Vasudeva Iyengar, an advocate, who was appointed as Receiver by the Court.2. There was arrear of land revenue to the tune of Rs. 18,000, and for this S. No. 54/7 and some other items which belonged to this estate, were sold on 4th September, 1961 under the Revenue Recovery Act. One of the defendants in O.S. No. 70 of 1938, viz., defendant No. 15 offered to deposit Rs. 20,000 for setting aside that sale. Sevayi Ammal the present plaintiff, who was defendant No. 31 in that suit, tendered Rs. 21,500. This...
A.E. Thangavelu Gounder and anr. Vs. Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1970
Reported in: [1971]80ITR486(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. We shall take up T. C. No. 191 of 1968 first The assessment year in this case is 1963-64. The revenue estimating the income of the assessee subjected the receiver, who was in charge of the: estate of the assessee, and others and levied agricultural income-tax under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The revision to the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax failed. The present tax case is against the order of the Commissioner who passed the impugned order in exercise of his powers of revision.2. It is now well-established that as against the order of the Commissioner no revision lies to this court under Section 54 of the Act, unless the order passed by the Commissioner is prejudicial to the assessee. It is not contended by the petitioner before us that an order prejudicial to the petitioner-was passed within the meaning of the proviso to Section 34(1) of the Act. Thus, therefore, the revision petition is incompetent and it has to be dismissed. This is...
Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. Indian Refrigerati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1970
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ68; [1971]27STC427(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. Messrs Indian Refrigeration Industries Private Ltd., are the assessees-raspondents in this tax case. For the year 1962-63, they were assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 3,49,943.13. The respondents claimed an exemption, inter alia, on a turnover of Rs. 2,74,083.38 on the ground that such turnover related to work and labour involved in the dealings between them and their customer and that therefore there was no element of sale involved in the transaction. The revenue negatived the exemption claimed. But, on second appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that no element of sale was involved and the exemption claimed was sustainable. It is as against this that the State has preferred the present tax case.2. The dealings in so far as the assessable turnover in question is concerned, can be summarised thus: The respondents were contractors of repute and were technically qualified as Engineers to fabricate and install a humidifying plant and o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›