Chennai Court July 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.
Vallamalai Estate Vs. Workers of Vallamalai Estate and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ273Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal by the management is from an order of Palaniswamy, J. The learned Judge quashed an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, and directed him to restore to his file a reference which the State Government had made to him by G.O. Rt. 340, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing, dated February 24, 1968. That reference was made under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and on a joint application by the management of the Vallamalai Estate, Valaparai, and the workmen represented by the Secretary of the Estates' Staffs Union of South India, Coimbatore. As required by the provisions of the Act, the reference arose from a satisfaction of the Government that the persons applying for reference represented the majority of each party. The question that was referred for adjudication was whether the non-employment of one George Vaz (box-maker) was justified; if not, to what relief he was entitled The reference also included the c...
T.N. Kamala Vs. the Director of School Education and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ68
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent on 2nd July, 1959. Under the Educational Rules which are adopted more as guidelines for the management of schools like the second respondent, the teachers entertained by private schools are to enter into a contract of service with the management. It is not in dispute that on the date of the entry into the service of the second respondent the petitioner so entered into a contract. Inter alia the contract provided that if a teacher in service of a school of the kind in question is charge-sheeted on account of some misconduct or any violation, a higher hierarchy is prescribed for the purpose of scrutinising the regularity or propriety of the orders passed by the management in relation to such charges. For example, if a teacher's services are terminated she has a right of appeal to the Inspectress of Schools, and as against that a representation can be made to the Director of School Education and so on...
The Management of Vallamalai Estate Vs. Workers of Vallamalai Estate, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ292
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal by the Management is from an order of Palaniaswami, J., The learned Judge quashed an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, and directed him to restore to his file a reference which the State Government had made to him by G.O. Rt. 340, Department of Industries, Labour and Housing, dated 24th February, 1968. That reference was made under Section 10. (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and on a joint application by the management of the Vellamalai estate, Valparai and the workmen represented by the Secretary of the estate staff Union of South India, Coimbatore. As required by the provisions of the Act, the reference arose from a satisfaction of the Government that the persons applying for reference represented the majority of each party. The question that was referred for adjudication was whether the non-employment of one George Vaz (box maker) was justified; if not, to what relief he was entitled? The reference also included the...
P. Gnanasambandam Vs. Radhakrishnan Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad138
ORDER1. The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i), and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Apart from the grounds of nuisance and willful default, the petitioner alleged that he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his two sons, aged 28 and 26 respectively, that the portion in his occupation consisting of one room and one kitchen, was not sufficient for the use and occupation of his family and that he bona fide required the portion in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and additional accommodation. The respondent contended that he never committed any nuisance and that the allegation as if there was default in the payment of rent was not bona fide. He further contended that the petitioner was in the habit of evicting tenants for the purpose of letting portions in their occupation for higher rents and that there were no bona fides in the case of requirement o...
K.R. Subbier Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC205(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The question that arises in this case is as to whether the cotton ropes which are used for tying of cattle, etc., would fall under the category 'braided cords' coming under the notification in G.O. No. 3146, Revenue, dated 3rd August, 1962.2. The said notification reduced the rate of tax payable by a dealer under the Madras General Skies Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of sales of braided cord and tape to 1 per cent, with effect from 22nd August, 1962. The assessee in this case carries on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton ropes and he was assessed for the year 1962-63 at Rs. 1,95,114.25 of which the turnover of Rs. 1,92,861.82 was taxed at 2 per cent and the balance of Rs. 2,252.43 was taxed at 1 per cent. The assessee preferred an appeal to the appellate authority challenging the assessment to tax at 2 per cent, in respect of sales of cotton ropes effected from 22nd August, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, amounting to Rs. 1,11...
G. Govindan Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Guindy Division and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC313(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. For the year 1963-64 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on an alleged taxable turnover of Rs. 15,000 in connection with the transfer of certain rights in the Tamil picture 'Maruthanattu Elavarasi'. It is common ground that it was only on this single occasion that the petitioner has transferred certain rights in the picture during the entire assessment year. The original order of assessment was passed on 29th August, 1966. He filed an appeal on 29th September, 1966. This was rejected in limine on the ground that there was a delay of one day in the presentation of the appeal. The explanation of the petitioner supported by a medical certificate for his having been delayed the presentation of the appeal by a day was not accepted. The petitioner thereafter did not pursue the matter until he was confronted with a demand notice on the basis of the original assessment order in 1969. No sooner he was called upon to pay a tax of Rs. 1,500 and a penalty of Rs. 2,2...
P. Gnanasambandan Vs. Radhakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ478
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He filed the petition before the Rent Controller under Section 10(2)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Apart from the grounds of nuisance and wilful default, the petitioner alleged that he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his two sons, aged 28 and 26 respectively, that the portion in his occupation consisting of one room and one kitchen, was not sufficient for the use and occupation of his family and that he bona fide required the portion in the occupation of the respondent for own use and additional accommodation. The respondent contended that he never committed any nuisance and that the allegation as if there was default in the payment of rent was not bona fide. He further contended that the petitioner was in the habit of evicting tenants for the purpose of letting portions in their occupation for higher rents and that there were no bona fides in th...
Gangayya and anr. Vs. S. Mandan Chand Samdaria and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad262; (1973)1MLJ55
1. These two second appeals have been filed two separate defendants. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed for recovery of possession after removing the superstructure and for costs. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants-appellants were the tenants of two separate portions of the suit land on a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- and that the tenancy was terminated by notice dated 20-10-1964. The defendants pleaded that the tenancy was from 1-4-1955, prior to the coming into force of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1955, and that, therefore, they were entitled to the protection under Section 9 of the Act. The only question therefore before the courts below was whether the tenancy commenced prior to 12-9-1955, on which date the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act came into force as contended by the defendants or whether the tenancy was created only on and from 1-4-1956 as contended by the plaintiffs.2. The defendants...
A. Ramavel Vs. Pandyan Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad359; (1973)1MLJ286
1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, respondent herein, who is a dealer in automobile parts, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,395.72 with future interest. His case was that he has supplied motor car parts to the defendant on various occasions between 29-7-1958 and 31-10-1961 and that in respect of those supplies of goods the suit amount was due. While calculating the amount due, he has also calculated interest periodically and added it and has claimed compound interest. The appellant filed a written statement in which he raised two main contentions; Firstly, the supply on credit of the goods was not to the defendant personally but to his father and brother-in-law, one V. K. Jagannathan. It was further contended that the calculation of compound interest is wrong and that only a sum of Rs. 4,027.21 would be due under the account if his other contentions fail. There was also the plea that the suit was barred by limitation.2. Both the courts below have concurrentl...
Ramco Cement Distribution Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC180(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. This writ petition has to be allowed. For the year 1966-67, the petitioner was assessed to tax in respect of his transactions on the basis of the returns submitted by him. But by mistake, the petitioner did not claim an exemption to which he is entitled to in law, namely, tax on freight charged independently in the invoices, and such levy is exempted expressly by Rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. For the succeeding year also, the assessment was so concluded; but the petitioner took up the assessment order on appeal. At the appellate stage, the petitioner sought for a similar relief basing his claim on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of A.P. [1969] 24 S.T.C. 487 The Appellate Assistant Commissioner felt the equity in the request and remanded the case for fresh disposal. The petitioner then filed an application for rectification of the apparent error in the earlier order stating that an il...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »