Chennai Court February 1973 Judgments
Desu Chengayyu Chettiar Vs. E. Chenchu Narayana Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ439
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of Section 4(d) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 (Madras Act IV of 1938) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts are not in dispute. The appellant, who is the first defendant, executed that suit mortgage Exhibit A-1, dated 27th July, I953 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents deceased father. Chenchiah Chettiar, for Rs. 9,000 agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum. Credit was given for Rs. 1,400, Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 1,500 said to have been paid on 15th April, 1956 10th March, 1958 and 6th April, 1961 respectively. The suit was laid for recovery of the balance, alleging inter alia that the first defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the Act as the hypotheca was a building situate within the municipal limits of Trivellore. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees. .The appellant contended that in addition to the amounts given credit to in the plaint, he had pa...
Tag this Judgment!Free India Private Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1973
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas427(Mad); [1974(29)FLR1]; (1973)IILLJ584Mad; (1973)2MLJ303
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It undertakes printing works and publishes a journal. Daring 1968 and 1969, the respondent levied what is known as the Employer's Special Contribution under Section 73-A under Chapter V-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Act). This demand was founded on the hypothesis that there were more than 18 employees in the company of the petitioner. The petitioner's attempt throughout was to establish that the working strength of the factory was always below the prescribed minimum or at any rate it did not exceed the minimum prescribed, and that the excess number of employees found working at or about the time when the Inspector of the State Insurance Corporation visited the factory, were not the regular employees of the company, bat were employees of an independent contractor who was associated seasonally for particular business secure...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Simco Meters Workers' Union and Anr. Vs. the Management ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1973
Reported in: (1973)ILLJ464Mad
ORDERG. Gopinath, B.A., B.L.1. This dispute relates to the bonus for the year ending 31-3-1970 referred on a joint application by the management and the workmen of Simco Meters Ltd., Tiruchi to the Government.2. According to the workmen represented by the Simco Meters Workers' Union (Union No. 1) and the Simco Meters Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (Union No. 2) the workmen are entitled to a bonus of 20% of their gross emoluments on the basis of the computation of available surplus for the relevant year, filed by Union No. 1 and marked as Ex. W. 1. The contention of the management is that as per the calculation contained in their worksheet marked as Ex. M. 11 the workmen are not entitled to claim more than the minimum bonus of 4% as there is no available surplus.3. The controversy centres round the deductions made by the management under the heads 'depreciation' and 'development rebate' from the gross profits as prior charges under Section 6(a) and (b) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Sampathkumaran and Co. Vs. the Regional Commissioner for Provident Fun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ153
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of chartered accountants. One P.T. Sampath Kumaran was running the firm of M/s. Sampathkumaran & Co., as its sole proprietor. He had on the rolls of his firm four employees consisting of one assistant, one manager, one stenographer and one peon. Under Section 1 (4) of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, the petitioner-company along with its employees applied to the appropriate statutory authority under the Act for including the petitioner-company as a covered establishment thereunder, for the purpose of institution of a provident fund for its employees. Later, the constitution of the firm was changed on 1st April, 1969, when the quondam proprietary firm became a partnership one. On 11th April, 1969, the present petitioner-company after the reconstitution applied for withdrawal of the firm and its employees from the liability to contribute to the provident fund as required under the Act and sought for final orders thereon. The...
Tag this Judgment!Ve. A. Vairavan Chettiar by Power of Attorney Agent, M.L. S.M. Subrama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ448
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, a common question is raised. The facts in W.P. No. 514 of 1971 can be perused, for understanding the relevant facts arising in this batch. Under the provisions of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State of Tamil Nadu called upon the Mayuram Municipal Council, Under Section 12 of the Act to prepare, publish and submit for their sanction a draft scheme as respects lands in regard to which a town planning scheme may be made. This notification in the official Gazette was made on 2nd May, 1944 and the Municipal Council was granted time till 10th March, 1945, for such preparation and submission. The Municipal Council did not send up the draft scheme as mandated from time to time ; the Municipality requested for time to submit the draft scheme for the sanction of the State Government. As a matter of fact, several applications were made seeking for such extension during the years 1945, 194...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR64(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family carrying on business in ginning and sale of cotton. It owned a ginning factory. For the assessment year 1960-61, it returned a net loss of Rs. 5,391. On a scrutiny of the assessee's accounts, the Income-tax Officer found the following discrepancies between the stock account and the stock declaration given by the assessee to the bank as on December 31, 1959 :Quantity pledged with the bankStock as per book Cotton80 candies20 candiesCotton seeds3,500 bags.2, 100 bagsKappas900 pothisnil 2. The assessee was called upon to explain the above discrepancy. The assessee's explanation was as follows :So far as cotton was concerned, there was a sale of 112 candies on December 31, 1959, and if the stock of cotton is taken into account, the actual stock as per the assessee's books of account would be 132 candies. As regards the cotton seeds, the assessee stated that there was a sale of 104 bags on December 31, 1959, and if this was taken into ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the General Manager, Southern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: (1974)IILLJ253Mad
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 681 of 1965 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, viz,, the union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, who lost before the trial Judge as well as the first appellate Judge, is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The respondent was in the service of the Southern Railway as a record sorter and he was suspended from service on 7-9-1955 on certain charges of criminal conspiracy. The respondent was prosecuted under Sections 120B, 467 and 420 I. P. C. and was eventually convicted of those offences and was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 4-3-1957. After this judgement in the criminal case was delivered, the appellant dismissed the respondent from services with effect from 21-3-1957. Against this order of dismissal, the respondent preferred W. P. No. 1134 of 1959 on the file of this Court. Meanwhile, the convictions were taken up on appeal and the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Represented HereIn by the General Manager, So ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ208
M. M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 681 of 1965, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras viz., the Union of India represented by the General Manager of the Southern Railway, who lost before the trial Judge as well as the first appellate Judge, is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The respondent was in the service of the Southern Railway as a Record Sorter and he was suspended from service on 7th September, 1955, on certain charges of criminal conspiracy. The respondent was prosecuted under sections 120-B, 467 and 420, Indian Penal Code and was eventually convicted of those offences and was stentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 4th March, 1957. After this judgment in the criminal case was delivered, the appellant dismissed the respondent from service with effect from 21st March, 1957. Against this order of dismissal, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 1134 of 1959 on the file of this Court. Meanwhile, the conv...
Tag this Judgment!The General Assurance Society Ltd., Calcutta Vs. M.S. Sivasami and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad257
Palaniswamy, J.1. The General Assurance Society Limited, the first defendant in O. S. No.6 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, is the appellant. On 20-1-1962, the first respondent-plaintiff consigned 175 tons of garnet sand in the second respondent-second respondent's boat No.137 from Kulasekarapatnam to Bombay and insured the cargo with the appellant company. The boat left with the cargo on 20-1-1962. Alleging that on the morning of 21-1-1962 the boat encountered high seas and due to that rough water entered into the boat, that 100 tons of garnet had to be jettisoned, that when the boat was turned back to Kulasekarapatnam to unload the remaining cargo, there was high sea resulting in water entering into the boat and that therefore the remaining cargo had also to be jettisoned and that a protest was made regarding the same which was recorded by the concerned officer in Kulasekarapatnam port, the plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of Rs.11,025/-. Relief was claime...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.S. Shanmugham Chettiar and ors. Vs. Gian Cheng Kiet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad349
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is against the order of transmission made by the learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram. The respondent before us is a resident of Singapore. He obtained a decree for money in the High Court of Singapore against the appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. A certified copy of the decree passed by the High Court of Singapore was filed before the learned District Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, under Section 44(A), Civil P. C. with a prayer that the decree may be transmitted to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, for execution. The appellants before us who are the judgment-debtors raised various objections to the above said application filed by the decree-holder. The learned District Judge Ramnad, overruled all the objections and ultimately by his order dated 11-7-1969 ordered transmission of the above said foreign decree to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai. Now, the judgment-debtors in this civil miscellaneous appeal have rais...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »