Chennai Court October 1971 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.
K. Saradambal Vs. Jagannathan and Brothers (Automobile Engineers and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]42CompCas359(Mad)
ORDERPalaniswamy, J.1. In this application, an interesting but a bit difficult point of law under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), arises for consideration, though the amount of money value involved in this controversy is negligible. The question is whether a person, having a statutory lien on a property of a company, is in the position of a secured creditor and stands outside the winding-up proceedings of the company. The relevant facts, which are not in controversy, may be briefly stated. By order dated 25th October, 1968, in C.P. No. 89 of 1967, this court directed the winding-up of Sri Jagannathan and Brothers, Automobile Engineers and Motor Works Private Ltd., Erode, at the instance of a creditor, who had filed that petition under Section 433(e) of the Act. In May, 1966, the company had entrusted two machineries belonging to it to Messrs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Private Ltd., Madurai, the applicant herein, for carrying out certain repairs. The...
R. Ananthan Vs. Avery India Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ166Mad
Palaniswamy, J.1. Avery India Limited, Madras, the first respondent, has a workshop, which is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. The work consists of assembling and repairing weighing machines. The mechanics not only work in the factory premises but also work outside whenever they are deputed to attend to the weighing machines supplied to the customers. Alleging that in so working outside the factory they were entitled to overtime wages, three of the employees, of whom the petitioner in this case is one, applied under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Madras, the second respondent, for computation of overtime wages under Section 59(1) of the Factories Act. The management contended that it had fixed certain rates of remuneration for the kind of work done outside the factory premises, considered as extra work, and that inasmuch as such work was not done in the factory, those employees were not entitled to overtime wages unde...
S.R. Srinivasa Thathachariar Vs. Pitchai Muthu Moopan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ287; (1971)IIMLJ424
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These two revisions arise out of the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate of Arivalur. in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, in M. C. Nos. 56 and 62 of 1971 on his file. The dispute related to the possession of certain lands situated in Muthirivar, a village in Lalgudi taluk. The revision petitioners are the owners of these lands : there is no dispute about it. The respondents claimed tenancy rights in June 1970. In November 1970. the petitioners moved for action under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. On the report of the Police, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Musiri, issued the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Criminal P. C. on 25-11-1970. He attached the property and appointed the village Headman as the Receiver. The parties filed their written statements. The proceedings were then transferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal. Documents. Ex, A. 1 to A. 9 series, were filed by the petitioners ...
The Union of India Represented by the Regional Director (Food) Vs. Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1971
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ1
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The Union of India, represented by the Regional Director (Food), Southern Region, Madras, has filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,16,995.50 said to be the value of 24.7.071 M.T. of Ammonium Sulphate short-landed by the first defendant which is a shipping company. The plaintiff imported ammonium sulphate from the Port of Houston, Texas, U.S.A., to Madras by 'Dr. Antonis Lemos' the ship of the first defendant company. Exhibit P-1 dated 3rd June, 1965 is the charter party between the plaintiff and the first defendant. 'Dr. Antonis Lemos' is the vessel which had been chartered and it was in that vessel the consignment of ammonium sulphate was shipped from the Port of Houston. Exhibit P-2 dated 7th July, 1965 is the bill of lading issued by the first defendant. It Was a bulk cargo and the vessel carried only the said cargo and nothing else. The manifested quantity of the cargo, namely, ammonium sulphate is 10,491.686 M.T. which is equal to 11,564.986 short...
Eswari Amma and anr. Vs. K.K. Korah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad339
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants are defendants 1 and 6 in O.S. No. 23 of 1963, on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Padmanabhapuram. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale Ex. A-4, dated 15-2-1961 for Rupees 52,000 in respect of 126 acres 91 cents of land known as 'Love Grow Providence Estate' owned by defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant is the wife and the second defendant is the daughter of D.W. 4 Raman Pillai, who acted on their behalf in bringing about the agreement of sale. Defendants 1 and 2 had purchased the suit property from the third defendant on 20-6-1956 for Rs. 20,000 under the original of Ex. B-2, but paid only Rs. 1500 at the time of sale and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 18,500 in four instalments from august, 1958 to August, 1962. There is no dispute about the claim of the third defendant for the balance of sale consideration payable to him. Defendants 4 and 5 were cultivating the suit lands excluding ...
Eithiraj Vs. K. Gopalaswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad219
ORDER1. Petitioner Ethiraj was the defendant in ejectment suit No. 306 of 1961 on the file of the court of Small Causes, Madras. He filed an application under S. 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act for directing the respondent (Plaintiff) to sell the suit site to him for a price to be fixed by the court. the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, who heard the case, decided it in his favour. But on appeal the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, held that the petitioner had not proved that he had become a tenant before the amendment of the Act and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the Act. The petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 2069 of 1963 in this court, and Alagiriswami J. allowed the civil revision petition and remanded the case to the trial court solely on the ground that, as an appeal lay against the order passed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants protection, Act, the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 5, C.P. Code should be complied with a...
B. Balaji Singh Vs. B. Raj Kumari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad278
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on a petition filed under Sections 13(1)(i), 25 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the proper authority to entertain the first appeal against the order of the Assistant Judge is the Principal Judge of the City Civil court, Madras and not this court. Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that all decrees and orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall be enforced in like manner as the decrees and orders of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction are enforced, any may be appealed from any law for the time being in force. The law for the time being in force, is found in S. 15 of the Madras City Civil Court Act which provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court, from any decree or order appealable under the provisions of the Civil procedure Code ...
Nanja Naicken Vs. Rangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad384
ORDER1. The sixth defendant has filed this civil revision petition against the order of the Additional District Munsif, Erode, dismissing his application (I.A. No. 3587 of 1969) filed under Sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P. Code, Praying to amend the preliminary decree granted in O.S. 853 of 1965, by giving him the right of partition and separate possession of his share.2. On Rangammal instituted the suit against four defendants for partition and separate possession of her three-fourths share in the plaint-schedule property. On the 10th July 1969, a preliminary decree was passed directing division by metes and bounds of the plaint schedule property into 32 shares with reference to good and bad soil and directing allotment to the plaintiff of 24/32 share, and to the first defendant of 1/32 share. Subsequent to the preliminary decree, the plaintiff applied in I.A. No. 884 of 1968 for impleading three persons, of whom the petitioner was one, as defendants 6 to 8, on the ground that they wer...
Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. A. Murugappan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ168
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal by one A.N. Subramaniam Chettiar, the first defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 132 of 1949, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pudukkottai, against the order, dated 16th August, 1969 of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing the application, E.A. No. 161 of 1966, which he had filed under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, to record full satisfaction of the decree so far as he Was concerned. There was one Subramaniam Chettiar. He had three sons, Annamalai, Chidambaram and Kuttayan. The first defendant in the suit (appellant herein) is the son of Annamalai Chettiar. The third defendant in the suit is Adaikalam Chettiar alias Kuttayan Chettiar (third son of Subramaniam Chettiar). The plaintiff in the suit was Deivanai Achi alias Visalakshi Achi, the wife of the said Kuttayan Chettiar. She filed the suit against the three defendants, the first defendant, Chidambaram (her husband's brother) as the second defendant, and her ...
K.C. Vedadri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1971
Reported in: [1973]87ITR76(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner carries on business of the purchase and sale of tanned skins and to a limited extent magnesite. According to him, he sustained loss and he could not close his accounts regularly at the end of each accounting year. For the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65 he submitted voluntarily his returns of income on March 31, 1965. It is common ground that for the assessment year 1963-64 the returns ought to have been filed normally on September 30, 1963, and for the year 1964-65 on September 30, 1964. These returns were scrutinised by the revenue and the assessment proceedings were completed on February 15, 1966. It is claimed that the department accepted the returns as correct. The petitioner also says that he paid all taxes as per the orders of assessment. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer purporting to act under Section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued a notice dated March 21, 1966, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why penalty sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »