Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1978)ILLJ227Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal arises from a judgment of Palaniswamy, J. who quashed an order of the Labour Court, Madras, in so far as it related to the second respondent's claim for gratuity. The learned Judge directed the Labour Court to restore his claim to file and make a suitable award in the light of the directions contained in his judgment. The second respondent was appointed on May 9, 1963 as an auditing assistant in the first respondent's company on a monthly salary of Rs. 125. With effect from September 30, 1967 he was retrenched which led to his claiming under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act a certain sum which included gratuity at the rate of one month's pay for four years. The claim as to gratuity was disallowed by the Labour Court notwithstanding the fact that an award in I.D. No. 3 of 1968 had provided for gratuity for the employees who would be bound by it. It appears that the award ceased to be operative with effect from February 22, 1962 following th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR462(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delievered byVEERASWAMI C.J. - We think that this petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench to which one of us was a party, in W. P. No. 4629 of 1965 (Raj Brothers Agencies v. Board of Revenue [1972] 30 S. T. C. 410). The point is whether, under section 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, the power of the Board of Revenue could be invoked on an application or it is confined to the Board itself invoking the power suo motu. We do not have the slightest doubt that, where a power is vested in a public authority, as under section 25 of the Act, to call for and examine the record of any order passed by a lower authority, suc power could either be invoked suo motu or on an application by a party aggrieved. The substance of the matter is that the investiture is by the legislature of the power of revision in the particular authority. For instance, section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests in the High Court revisional powe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad135
Palaniswamy, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal filed by the defendants (the first defendant being a firm of which the partners are defendants 2 and 3) is whether the suit properties which the appellants took on lease under Ex. P-1 on 18-10-1960 are 'buildings' within the meaning of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960, (Madras Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit properties consist of two theatres. One is called Noorjahan Talkies situated in Saidapet an the other is called Janata Talkies situated in Pallavaram. These two theatres originally belonged to one Batcha Sahib, who died on 25-8-1960, leaving his widow Amina Bi, son Abdul Gafoor (first plaintiff) and two daughters Noorjahan Begum and Bibi Jan (plaintiffs 4 and 5). Bathca Sahib was using the theatres for exhibiting films and after his death his heirs continued to use them likewise. The defendants obtained a lease of the suit properties from the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad260; (1973)1MLJ260
1. The 2nd and 4th defendants in O. S. Nos. 257 of 1960 and 396 of 1963 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Devakottai, who are the one and the same persons and who lost before the courts below, are the appellants herein. The suits were instituted for rendition of accounts for different periods in respect of No. 22 in Coral Merchants St. at Madras. The genealogical tree attached to the judgment of the learned District Munsif shows the relationship between the parties. According to the plaintiffs, the property in question originally belonged to the joint family consisting of four brothers. K. R. P. R. Alagappa Chettiar, KR. PR. Karuppan Chettiar alias Sinnia Chettiar, Udayappa Chettiar and Palaniappa Chettiar. Their father's case is, in 1908, there was a partition between those four brothers and at that partition, the suit property was kept in common and was managed by the first branch. It is on this allegation that the two suits for rendition of accounts in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1887
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Balaraman is the accused-petitioner who questions ihe propriety and the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate (J.), Chineleput convicting nun of tlw offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. read with Section 2 of the same Act. for contravening clous 3. Sub-clauses (1) and (2). of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order. 1968. The accusation against him was that on 27-2-196S at about 20-00 hours, at G. N. T. Road, Red Hills, opposite to the Bus Stand, the petitioner and seven others (already acquitted) were found transporting 55 bags of Sirumani Paddy in a lorrv MDS. 5378 from Nellore side to Red Hills which is in Saidapet Taluk and which is a notified area, without a valid permit.2. P.W. 1 is the Heed Clerk in the Civil Supplies Section of the Collectorate at Kanehipuram, who proved the sanction order from the Collecto-rate. P-W. 1 further stated that the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, C.I.D....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1972)2MLJ554
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal filed by the defendants (the first defendant being a firm of which the partners are defendants 2 and 3) is whether the suit properties which the appellants took on lease under Exhibit P1 on 18th October, 1960, are 'buildings' within the meaning of the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 (Madras Act XVIII of 1960)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit properties consist of two theatres. One is called Noorjahan Talkies situated in Saidapet and the other is called Janata Talkies situated in Pallavaram. These two theatres originally belonged to one Batcha Sahib, who died on 25th August, 1960, leaving his widow Amina Bi, son Abdul Gaffoor (first plaintiff) and two daughters Noorjahan Begum and Bibi Jan, (Plaintiffs 4 and 5). Batcha Sahib Was using the theatres for exhibiting films and after his death his heirs continued to use them likewise. The defendants obtained a lease of the suit pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ101
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. Balaraman is the accused-petitioner who questions the propriety and the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate (J), Chingleput convicting him of the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with Section 3 of the same Act, for contravening Clause 3, Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of the Madras Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1968. The accusation against him was that on 27th February, 1969, at about 20-00 hours, at G.N.T. Road, Red Hills, opposite to the bus stand, the petitioner and seven others (already acquitted) were found transporting 55 bags of sirumani paddy in a lorry MDS. 5378 from Nellore side to Red Hills which is in Saidapet Taluk and which is a notified area, without a valid permit.2. P.W. I is the Head Clerk in the Civil Supplies section of the Collectorate at Kanchipuram, who proved the sanction order from the Collectorate. P.W.1 further stated that the Inspector of Police, Food Cell, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ126
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This batch of writ petitions raises a question regarding the construction and constitutional validity of several provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (Central Act XXXII of 1966), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2680 to 2685, 2688 to 2701, 2711, 2712, 2727, 2762, 2797, 2847 to 2857, 2919, 3028, 3223, 3268, 3425, 3477 and 4466 of 1968; 227, 468, 503, 531, 629, 579, 711, 849, 1065, 1301 and 1926 of 1969; 3211, 3641 and 3730 of 1970 and 923 to 928 of 1971 are what are known as trade mark holders in beedies. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 415 to 425 of 1969 and 444 to 455 of 1969 call themselves as contractors in the manufacture of beedies, attached to the petitioner in W.P. No. 227 of 1969. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 40, 41, 169, 211, 212, 213, 231, 276 and 2631 of 1969 and 2848 of 1970 are manufacturers of cigars. The petitioners in W.P. No. 125 of 1969 are cigar roll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]93ITR341(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following thirteen questions have been referred in pursuance of an order of this court under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:1'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of Rs. 5,000 was justified on the materials ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 1,719 to the income returned is justified ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of Rs. 5,000 was justified on the materials ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 2,264 to the income returned is justified ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 479 to the income returned by the assessee is justified ? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition to the income returned to the extent of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]90ITR412(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from pursuing the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated July 6, 1967, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ' the Act'), in respect of the assessment year 1963-64. The petitioner, a firm of partnership, originally consisted of five partners. On April 24, 1963, one K. Ramaswami, a partner of the firm, retired and on December 26, 1963, M/s. Krishnaswami and Thiagarajan, two other partners of the firm, also retired. The partnership firm was continued by Perumalsarni and Uthamraj, the two remaining partners, up to January 3, 1965, on which date the firm was dissolved. 2. For the assessment year 1963-64, the petitioner filed a return of income and this return was accompanied by a statement of the auditor, containing the above facts relating to the partnership firm and also a statement that the deed of partnership was executed on Decembe...
Tag this Judgment!