Chennai Court April 1971 Judgments
Kumaravelu Pillai Vs. the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ383Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant on his retirement was paid among other things gratuity computed on the basic salary without including the dearness allowance. He claimed that he was entitled to gratuity computed on the basic salary including dearness allowance. This issue was settled in his favour by an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Kailasam, J., set aside that order and allowed the petition of the co-operative society. The appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Judge.2. In our opinion, no interference with the award was called for. A by-law of a society is not a rule having the force of law and an error in its interpretation by the Labour Court cannot normally, therefore, be removed by This Court on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from it, as held in Madras State Electricity Board v. Nathan : (1970)2MLJ126 , salary, pay and wages should normally be regarded as includin...
Tag this Judgment!K.P.V. Shaik Mohd. Rowther and Co. Vs. K.S. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)IILLJ385Mad
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The Labour Court rightly held, in our view, that in view of the suspension of the workmen as a punishment, they were not entitled to any wages and, therefore, no question of computation of the wages would arise under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Ismail, J., thought that because to the claim petitions the defence was raised by the management in its counter in relation to the suspension, that would not be a relevant matter. That question would have to be decided in an appropriate proceeding. In petitions under Section 33C(2) that question cannot be gone into. Once the Labour Court was informed and it was satisfied that there had been a punishment by way of suspension, no further question can arise, as, in view of the suspension, no claim could be made for wages.2. So far as the overtime wages are concerned, the learned Judge has found that the workman in W.A. No. 402 of 1969 has worked beyond the normal working hours. That finding appears to b...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thavasi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ445; (1971)IIMLJ231
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The two appellants (Thavasi and Mayandy) seek to question their convictions for offences under sections 457, 393, 394 and 392 read with 397.2. Briefly the facts as spoken to by P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 and corroborated by the testimony of P. Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are : P W. 1 is the younger brother of P. W. 4 and the daughter of P. W 4 is Gangabai (P. W. 3) They all live in the same house. On 17-8-69 night P. W. 1 was sleeping on the outer pial. At about 1.30 A. M. Ganga Bai P. W. 3 raised an alarm saying that the thief is snatching her neck chain. They were then sleeping inside. As P. W. 3 Gangabai came out and cried P W. 1 asked her to call for help of the neighbours by raising an alarm from the street and P. W. 1 entered the house. One of the electric lights was burning. He found A. 2 and P. W. 4 grappling each other. He also found Al and P. W. 5 grappling each other and rolling on the ground. P. W. 1 attempted to rescue P. W. 5. Al. Thavasi had a knife in his hand an...
Tag this Judgment!The Managment, South Arcot District Co-operative Motor Transport Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ442
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Management of the South Arcot District Co-operative Motor Transport Society (for Ex-servicemen), Ltd., Cuddalore, is the petitioner before me. Certain disputes were pending between the petitioner and its employees prior to 1968. At or about that time the Committee of the Society was superseded and a Special Officer was appointed to manage the affairs of the Society. The Special Officer in the interest of the Society, found that the services of respondents 2 to 4 were no longer salutary and beneficial to the Society, and after making such enquiries as were necessary in the circumstances, and after initially suspending them, he dismissed those workers in February and March, 1969. To be more exact, the second and third respondents were dismissed on 4th of March, 1969 and the fourth respondent was dismissed on 17th of February, 1969. The Special Officer rightly applied under the proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) of the-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approva...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajanna and Another Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR251(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byRAMANUJAM J. - As the point involved in both the writ petitions is the same, they are dealt with together.In both the above petitions the petitioners seek a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ prohibiting the First Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem, from proceeding with the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1961-62 initiated by him in pursuance of the notices dated April 25, 1968, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Each of the petitioners filed his return of income for the assessment year 1961-62, that is, for the previous year ended April 12, 1961, and the said return of income was accompanied by statement of creditors which included the borrowal of Rs. 10,000 from Seth Vasumul Lalchand, Madras, and also a claim of Rs. 305 towards the interest payment said to have been made to the said banker on the said borrowing of Rs. 10,000. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment in each of these cases f...
Tag this Judgment!T. R. Rajakumari and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle Vi, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR189(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byRAMAPRASADA RAO J. - A common point arises in all these writ petitions. I shall notice the facts in W. P. No. 1982 of 1966 as it would be sufficient for the purpose. I shall however refer to certain salient features in each of the petitions in the course of my judgment.In W. P. No. 1982 of 1966 the petitioner was served with a notice of demand dated December 24, 1962, under section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the notice the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,966.74 as advance tax in one instalment on or before March 15, 1963. This was so because no earlier demand for payment of advance tax was made, which if made would enable the petitioner to pay such advance tax in equated instalments as prescribed under the Act. The advance tax was demanded during the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner did not pay the amount as demanded. No action was taken to recover the said advance tax within the...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Pillai and ors. Vs. Kamalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad1; (1971)2MLJ397
Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants are respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition under Ss. 62, 63 and 67 of the Indian Lunacy Act for directing inquisition for the purpose of finding out whether Kumara Pillai is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs and for passing suitable orders for his custody and the management of his estate. The second respondent is the son of the first respondent who claims to have married Kumara Pillai as his second wife in Avani 1119 M.E. The appellants are the sons and daughters of Kumara Pillai through his first wife Ponnammal and they dispute the alleged marriage between the first respondent Kamalammal and their father. The third respondent Ponnamlla was impleaded as the fifth respondent in O.P.No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the lower court on the ground that she had filed O.S.No. 41 of 1962 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nager...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Kandaswami and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC227(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, C.J. 1. The common question in these petitions turns on the scope of Section 7-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which was introduced by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970. Just to show how the question arises, we refer to the facts in W.P. No. 864 of 1970. There, by a memorandum dated 5th March, 1970, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Leigh Bazaar and Gugai Division, Salem, called upon the petitioner to pay a certain sum by way of tax assessed under the section. The basis for the charge was stated to be :Admittedly you have purchased castor seeds through your own bought notes from registered dealers whose transactions are not verifiable. As per Section 10, the burden of proof that any dealer or any of his transaction is not liable to tax under this Act shall lie on such dealer. Therefore the purchases effected by you have suffered tax already should be proved by you. 2. The contention for the petitioner is that this approach to Section 7...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad105
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the order of the Commissioner. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the plaintiff was not a hereditary trustee of the suit Mariamman temple. Defendants 1 to 3 were the non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Area Committee. The plaintiffs case was that Sir Mariamman temple in Mulla-vasal is an ancient temple. that for the past three generations no one other than the members of his family had ever managed or controlled the affairs of the temple, that his grandfather as hereditary trustee reconstructed the temple in 1899, that for the first time in 1950 one Subramania Iyer was appointed as a trustee by the Endowments Board and that the plaintiff was also functioning as a trustee along with Subramania Iyer. He further contended that his grandfather was a trustee till 1910 when he died and was succe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Munusami Naidu Vs. A. Kasim Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad437; (1971)IIMLJ379
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner on three grounds (1) wilful default in payment of the rent, (2) use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it had been led and (3) requirement of the building by the respondent bona fide for his own occupation. The petition was resisted by the petitioner contending that there has been no wilful default in payment of the rents, that the building has not been put to a different use and that the requirement of the respondent-landlord for his own occupation was not at all bona fide. The Rent Controller held that the alleged wilful default has not been made out and that the premises also has not been used for a different purpose by the petitioner. On the question of owner's occupation the respondent has referred in his eviction petition to Section 10(3)(a)(i) but the evidence adduced on his behalf was to the effect that his family has been in occupat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »