Chennai Court February 1972 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.
Sarada Industries Vs. M. Elumalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ248Mad
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the broad facts are similar. The first respondent in each of these writ petitions applied for leave to go on an excursion between the 15th November, 1969 and the 21st November, 1969. Both these respondents applied on 7th October, 1969, for such leave. In the case of the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 2512 of 1971, it was refused on the ground that he had obtained such leave three times already and, therefore, he was not entitled to such leave under the second proviso to Section 79(6) of the Factories Act-Regarding the other respondent, leave was refused on the ground that no privilege leave was available to his credit. These respondents, however, incessantly made respresentations on the ground that they had spent considerable sums of money to proceed on the excursion and they once again requested for leave, which was again refused. Ignoring such orders of refusal of leave by the management, both these respondents absented themse...
State Public Prosecutor Vs. Meenakshi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1684
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1 This is an appeal filed by the State against the order, of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, No. II. Madurai acquitting the three accused-respondents of the offence of contravening Sections 2 (i) (a) and (1). 7 (i) and 16 a) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with clause A in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules2. Briefly the facts are: P. W. 1 is a Municipal Sanitary Inspector cum Food Inspector. On 11-9-1969, at 11 A.M. he along with his maistry went for taking samples of food articles. They found the Ice Cream push cart before No. 1. Bhagavan Chetti Lane when they proceeded along the workshop road. The push cart Ice Cream belongs to the Ice Cream Company. 60 Munichalai Road. P. W. 1 enquired the 3rd accused who was the salesman. The 3rd accused represented that he was taking the ice cream for sale. P. W. 1 thereafter purchased 600 grams of ice cream sold by the 3rd accused; P. W. 1 paid Rupees 4....
Subba Reddiar Vs. Hazra Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad237
1. This appeal arises out of the final decree proceedings in a partition action. O. S. No. 138 of 1949 in which the appellant-fifth defendant has been held liable for mesne profits in respect of a portion of a non-residential building which is situate in a centrally located, busy non-residential area in Karur town a reputed whole-sale and retail business centre. Mesne profits have been awarded from January 1946 till delivery of possession which took place on 31-1-1964. As regards the quantum, a Commissioner who was appointed investigated into the matter and determined the mesne profits with reference to four distinct periods. The Commissioner also took note of the fact that the other portion of the building had been let out by the fifth defendant to one K. C. Venkataraman Chettiar at the rate of Rs. 55 per mensem and this rate has been taken into account by the Commissioner in fixing the quantum. After a careful scrutiny of the Commissioner's report and the evidence the trial Court fix...
Anglo-french Textile Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ241Mad
Ramaprasada, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated originally under the French law and is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It operates a textile mill at Pondicherry. Its accounts are made in accordance with the calendar year, which is the accounting year for purposes of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. As required under the Companies Act, it has accredited auditors who audited its accounts for the year 1967. According to the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet as at 31st December, 1967 the available surplus and the allocable surplus for purposes of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 as-disclosed in the audited statement of account were Rs. 4,68,502 and Rs. 2,82,101, respectively. The 2nd respondent, which is the union representing the workers in the petitioner-company, demanded a 15 per cent bonus for the year 1967. The company, however, having regard to the allocable surplus as disclosed in the audited statement of account, expressed its willingnes...
In Re: Sant Prakash Sahni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1972
Reported in: 1974CriLJ60
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. By making false and fraudulent representations to some bankers to the effect that he was going to import hides and skins of commercial quality the petitioner succeeded in opening Letters of Credit in some banks and in inducing those bankers to remit foreign exchange equivalent to the highly inflated value of the goods mentioned in the invoices of the shippers. The Reserve Bank and the Government of India were defrauded to the tune of more than Rs. 34 Lakhs. With these allegations, the Special Police Establishment filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for offences (1) under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I. P. C., (2) under Section 23 read with Section 4 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and (3) under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The prosecution filed a memo before the learned Magistrate stating that in view of the magnitude of the amount involved in the cheating it would be in the interest of justice to have the case tried by t...
Rangammal Vs. Minor Appasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad12
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for (1) a declaration that the decree in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's Court. Pattukkottai, and the decrees in Appeals awarding 1/6th share to the 1st defendant herein are not binding on the plaintiff. (2) for a declaration, that the first defendant herein is entitled only to 1/12th share in the suit properties and (3) for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the decree passed in O. S. No. 344 of 1957 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai. One Appasami had two sons Ramasami and Veeraswami. On the death of Appasami, his 1/3rd share in the joint family properties devolved on his widow Nagammal and the said two sons Ramaswami and Veerasami. Veerasami died leaving defendants 1 and 2 his widows and adopted on 27-4-1956 prior to his death. The plaintiff as such adopted a son of Veerasami became entitled to a half share in the 1/3rd sh...
Appavoo Pillai Vs. Vijayambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad64
1. These three appeals are connected and they are now heard together.2. L. P. A. 3 of 1965:-This appeal has been filed with leave of Srinivasan J., against S. A. No. 1243 of 1964 confirming the decisions of the courts below. The facts of the case are as follows: One Ramakrishna Pillai had two sons Arunachala and Appavoo. Arunchala's first wife Rathinathammal died in 1922 leaving no children and Arunachala died on 12-9-1949. Prior to his death certain proceedings in Court, to which he was a party, were pending and they were (1) O.S. 218 of 1943 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukottai, filed by one Sachidanandam Pillai against the assets of Ramakrishna Pillai in the hands of Arunachala and Appavoo and (2) A. S. 401 of 1949 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. Vijayambal, the respondent in the above appeal applied herself in the above pending proceedings to be impleaded as heir of Arunachala, her deceased husband, on the ground that she was his legally wedded wife. In the p...
C.R. Ramachandra Gowder and ors. Vs. C.P. Nanjappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad179; (1973)1MLJ189
1. These two appeals arise out of C. S. No. 30 of 1961 filed for recovery of possession of No. 11. General Muthiah Mudali St. G. T. Madras, and O. P. 80 of 1963 filed for the issue of Letters of Administration with a copy of the will of Desai Gowder annexed limited to the suit house, which O. P. on caveat filed by the defendants was registered as T. O. S. No. 11 of 1963. Both the above matters were directed to be tried together by an order of Venkataraman, J., dated 6-8-1963. We shall first take up O. S. A. 26 of 1965 arising out of the main suit C. S. 30 of 1961. The property covered by the suit is a house in General Muthiah Mudali St. G. T. Madras, hereinafter referred to as the suit house. One N. Desai Gowder, the paternal uncle of the plaintiff's father, Ponniah, purchased the suit house in 1909. On Desai Gowder's death, the plaintiff's father got the suit house as a residuary legatee under his Will dated 18-4-1914, and in the division of the family properties between the plaintiff...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. M.K. Krishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR1(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These are references, at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras, under Section 26(1) and (3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '). The respondent-assessee was carrying on business in the manufacture of scented betel nut under the well-known brand name ' ASOKA '. He converted the sole proprietary concern into a partnership firm under a partnership deed, dated April, 9, 1953, by taking his son, Kuppuraj Chetty, as his partner, under the name and style of ' M. K. kRISHNA CHETTY '. The partnership deed provided that the partnership might be determined by either partner giving three months' notice in writing and on the expiration of such a notice, the partnership shall determine. Clause 14 of the partnership deed further provided that, on dissolution of the partnership, the junior partner, namely, Kuppuraj Chetty, the son of the assessee, shall be entitled to be paid the amount contributed by him as capital and his share of profits,...
Gouthamchand Galada and Gyanchand Galada Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR292(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is the owner of premises bearing door No. 13, Rundalls Road, Vepery, Madras, The building in that premises covers a plinth area of 53 x 90 sq. feet and it stands on a site of the total extent of 18 grounds. The premises was purchased by the assessee in court auction in the year 1952 for a sum of Rs. 75,500. According to the assessee the entire property is let out to the Government of Madras on a rent of Rs. 600 per month for locating their sales tax offices. In the wealth-tax return for 1962-63 the assessee valued the property at Rs. 93,560 on the basis of 20 times the annual rental value of the premises. The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that the capital value returned by the assessee represented only the value of the building and five grounds of land which was necessary for the convenient occupation and enjoyment of the building and that the balance of 13 grounds of land should be treated as surplus vacant site and that the appreciated market value o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »