Chennai Court April 1973 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.
The Committee of Management of the Padanthalu Moodu Village Co-operati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad460; (1973)2MLJ200
ORDER1. The petitioner-society is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 11-6-1971, in and by which the first respondent dissolved the petitioner-society under Section 72(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1961 and appointed a special officer to manage the affairs of the society. In or about October 1969, the second respondent, feeling doubtful about the proper administration of the petitioner-society, directed an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act whereby the working and financial condition of the petitioner-Society was sought to be investigated. Further processing of the enquiry which was started in October 1970, was cancelled and instead an Inspector was appointed under Section 66 authorizing him to inspect the books of the petitioner-society and report as to the financial condition of the society and its working. It is common ground that the Inspector submitted such a report under Section 66 of the Act only on 3-5-1971. The financing bank of the petit...
Cosmopolitan Club, Represented by Its Honorary Secretary S. Shanmugbam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ83
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of Srinivasan' J. dismissing the petition filed by the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras for a writ of mandamus prohibiting the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras taking action under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 as amended against the Cosmopolitan Club, Madras. Briefly speaking, the Act is intended to provide for the institution of provident funds for employees in factories and other establishments; the employer has to contribute 61/4%. The Cosmopolitan Club contends that the Act does not apply to them.2. Originally Section 1 (3) of the Act stood as follows:Subject to the provisions contained in Section 16 (dealing with infant factories) it applies in the first instance to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule in which fifty or more persons are employed, but the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the...
C. Muthuvel Pillai Vs. Hazarath Syed Shah Mian Sakkab Sahib Kadhiri Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad199
1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 30 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Thanjavur, is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal. The second defendant is no other than the mother of the first defendant. The plaintiff, Hazarat Saiyed Shah Mian Saheb Kadiri Thaikkal, represented by its trustee Ismat Pasha Sahib, laid the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit land from defendants 1 and 2 after removing the superstructure put up thereon by them, alleging, inter alia, that the plaintiff is the owner of the site described in the plaint schedule, that one Muthayya Pillai and the second defendant executed a rent deed in favour of the then trustee, C. S. Peeran Sahib, on 20-12-1934, for occupation thereof, agreeing to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 5, that the period fixed was five years, that although the period fixed in the lease deed expired long ago, defendants 1 and 2 are continuing in possession thereof, that they have sublet the property in favo...
Muthyala Balaiah Chetty and Sons Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Sow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC605(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer and is carrying on business at No. 120, Audiappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. On 20th September, 1962, the petitioner's business premises was inspected by the sales tax authorities and in the course of the inspection it was detected that the accounts kept by the petitioner did not correctly reflect his dealings and even the returns filed by him as a person who opted to file monthly returns in respect of his turnover, were also incorrect in that they contained inaccurate particulars. The petitioner was, therefore, confronted with a notice under Section 45(2)(a) read with Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in and by which he was asked to explain why his conduct in having wilfully submitted an untrue return should not be dealt with in accordance with law. Whilst, however, giving such notice, the petitioner was given the option to compound such offences committed by him for the months in question commencing from Apri...
K. Ranmchandra Mudaliar Vs. Eswara Devacayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ19
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against acquittal of the first accused in C.C. No. 1818 of 1970. On the whole there were six accused who were charged with the offences of rioting and mischief by the appellant before me as complainant before the trial Magistrate. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused 2 to 6 holding that the facts alleged by the appellant (complainant) were not true but convicted the first accused only of the offence under Section 426, Indian Penal Code. On appeal by the first accused, the learned District Magistrate (Judicial) Cuddalore acquitted him allowing the appeal.2. The appellant was the manager of an elementary school at Thirunaraiyur village. The first accused is not a person connected with that school but he is the President of the Panchayat of that place. 2nd accused is the Headmaster of the said school and accused 3 to 6 are some of the teachers in that school. The complaint of the appellant is that because he punished the 2nd accused and rev...
K.V. Viswanathan Vs. the Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1973Mad462; (1973)2MLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioner, who applied for a license to warehouse excisable commodities and goods aggrieved by the order of refusal made by the Collector of Central Excise who is the licensing authority, has come up to this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash his order dated 21-12-1972. On 19-4-1972, the petitioner applied for the grant of what is known as A. L. S. license for keeping a private warehouse for the storage of excisable goods on which duty has not been paid. On 1-11-1972, the petitioner was confronted with a show cause notice by the respondent as to why his application for the grant of a license should not be rejected on various grounds which I shall presently advert to. The petitioner replied on 7-11-1972, characterizing many of the objections raised as not directionable and sought, again for the grant of the license. By the impugned order the respondent rejected the application for the grant of the license.2. The petitioner's case is that he has complied wi...
Gopal Subramani Pandit Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ36
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This petition is by the complainant before the police and is directed against the judgment of acquittal made by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class II Court. Hubli in C. C. No. 998 of 197-1.2. The petitioner complained be-fore the Police in regard to a certain incident which took place in broad daylight on 24-5-1971. It was his case that the accused trespassed into his house at about 3 p.m. on that day and assaulted him besides damaging some of the properties such as radio, trunk etc. The police after investigation, placed a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 452, 453. 323, 427 read with Section 34. I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after a perusal of the police papers and after hearing the accused, framed charges in respect of those offences. In support of the prosecution two eve-witnesses have been examined among others. They are P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 3 is a person who arrived immediately after the incident and speaks to the several circumstances of misc...
Velappa Gounder Vs. S. Bomma Pandithan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ188
V. Ramaswami, J.1. A short and interesting point of law arises in the second appeal. The facts as found by the Courts below are these :2. The defendant-respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,000 from the plaintiff-appellant and adding another sum of Rs. 3,000 of his own, he purchased the suit property under the original of Exhibit A-1, dated 22nd October, 1960 but the purchasers were shown as the plaintiff and defendant. It was the case of the defendant that as security for the loan of Rs. 3,000, the plaintiff's name was also shown as a purchaser under the document but no title was intended to be conferred on the plaintiff or was in fact conferred. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his one-half share alleging that he was a real purchaser having contributed Rs. 3,000 towards the sale consideration and that the plea raised in defence is barred under Section 92 of the Evidence Act. Both the Courts below have held that the borrowing was true and that the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›