Chennai Court August 1973 Judgments
T.U. Narayanan Vs. K. Pachlnayaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ161
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The tenants are the petitioners. The respondents filed applications seeking for the eviction of the petitioners as tenants under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the allegation that they required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller, the appellate-authority and the revisional authority came to the conclusion that the landlord's request under the circumstances as above was bona fide. Incidentally a contention was raised about the validity of the notice to quit and whether there was a proper undertaking as contemplated under Section 14 (2) (b) of the Act. On this point raised, the tenants could not succeed both before the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, namely, the District Judge who had the requisite jurisdiction to deal with such revision petitions under Section 25 of the Act as it then was. It...
Tag this Judgment!P. G. Arunachalam Vs. the Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ364
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. P.G. Arunachalam, is the Petitioner. He is the Headmaster of the Corporation High School, Tiruvottiyur, Madras. He entered service in August 1950 as B.T. Assistant in the Corporation High School, Nungambakkam. He was promoted as Headmaster in June, 1964. Ever since his appointment as a teacher, he maintains that, he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors without any blemish. He makes certain allegations against a Councillor of the Corporation in respect of admission of pupils into the High School. According to the petitioner, on the 19th June, 1968 at about 12 noon, when the petitioner was in his office in the first floor of the school, his peon came and told him that some Councillors had come and they wanted to see him. He sent word through the peon that he would be seeing them and immediately he asked the three teachers and the attender who were then in his room assisting him, to leave the room in order to enable him to a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Bhoormal Tirupati Vs. the Additional Collector of Customs, Custom H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad224
Kailasam, J. 1. The petitioner in the writ petition praying that the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent, Additional Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras, dated 28-11-1970 in O. S. 583 of 68 R. D. imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act 1962, and to quash the said order. The petition was dismissed by Ramaprasada Rao, J., holding that the order passed by the Customs Authorities was proper and in accordance with law and the decision arrived at by them has to be sustained.2. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the appellant, questioned the correctness of the order of the learned Judge mainly on the ground that the requirement of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act has not been complied with. His plea is that the goods were seized on 14-11-1968 and a notice which was attempted to be served on the appellant could not be served on 8-5-1969 as he had left the premises and la...
Tag this Judgment!P. Bhoormal Tirupati Vs. the Additional Collector of Customs Customs H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ319
Kailasam J.1. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant before us. He filed a petition praying that the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent, Additional Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras, dated 28th November, 1970 in O.S. No. 583 of 1968 R.D., imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 15,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and to quash the said order. The petition was dismissed by Ramaprasada Rao, J., holding that the order passed by the Customs authorities was proper and in accordance with law and the decision arrived at by them has to be sustained.2. Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for tire appellant, questioned the correctness of the order of the learned Judge mainly on the ground that the requirement of Sections 110(2) and 124 of the Customs Act has not been complied with. His plea is that the goods were seized on 14th November, 1968 and a notice which was attempted to be served on the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaswami Asari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR546(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee, at whose instance both the above cases have been referred to this court, is a partner in two firms, Messrs. Nityakalyana Abarna Maligai and C. Innasi Muthu Mudaliar and Sons, Madurai. He also carried on money-lending and jewellery business in his individual capacity under the name and style of 'Nityakalyani Stores' at No. 40, Sea Street, Colombo. 2. The premises of Nityakalyana Abarna Maligai, Madurai, was searched by the customs authorities in June, 1958, on suspicion that the assess-see was engaged in currency smuggling activities. Certain papers found in the premises were seized by the said authorities but no action was taken against him by the said authorities thereafter based on those papers. The Income-tax Officer, however, pursued the matter with a view to find out whether the assessee in fact carried on business in currency smuggling. The assessee was examined on January 12, 1959, by the Income-tax Officer in this regard. He denied having engaged h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1973
Reported in: [1974]94ITR173(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a public limited company owning a spinning mill managed by a managing agency firm by name Balakrishna and Company, of which one V. L. Balakrishnan is a partner. In the previous year ending on December 31, 1956, the total purchases of cotton, both Karunguni and Cambodia, made by the assessee amounted to Rs. 20,15,779. The said sum included purchases to the extent of Rs. 6,43,838 made from two persons, R. Krishnaswamy and K. Palani-swamy. The purchases from the above two persons were at the rate of Rs. 980 and Rs. 871 per pothi for Cambodia and Karunguni, respectively. The above rates represent the ceiling prices fixed for Cambodia and Karunguni cotton. But the rates at which Karunguni and Cambodia were purchased from some other persons were much less. The assessee had also paid for the cotton purchased from some others at the ceiling rates and such purchases amounted to Rs. 1,57,208. On an enquiry by the Income-tax Officer as to how the ceili...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmiammal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad157
N.S. Ramaswami, J. 1. The claimants in O. P. 601 of 1969, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, are the appellants before us. One Kapali Nattar was injured in a motor accident that occurred on 22-7-1969 in Triplicane High Road, as a result of which he died within a few hours thereafter. The motor vehicle involved in the accident is the State Transport Bus bearing registration No. MSV 266. The three claimants are respectively the widow, the minor son and the mother of Kapali Nattar, the deceased. They claimed a total compensation of Rs. 75,000 payable to them in respect of the death of Kapali Nattar. According to them, the motor accident which resulted in the death of Kapali Nattar was due to rash and negligent driving of the abovesaid motor vehicle. The respondent to the claim petition is the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department as the owner of the vehicle.2. The tribunal below determined the total compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shanmugham and ors. Vs. Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad363
Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by claimants 3 to 6 in a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore East. The Claimants filed an application under Order XXVI, Rule 4 and S. 151. Civil P. C. for the issue of a commission to examine witnesses at Madras. The petition was filed for compensation for the loss of life of persons and injuries to one of the petitioners. The petitioners claimed to be the heirs of two of the deceased. The application was taken for the issue of a commission to examine four medical officers and one nurse, all stationed at Madras, to speak with reference to the treatment given to Rukmani, who sustained injuries in the accident and for which compensation had been asked for which compensation had been asked for in the petition. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement attacking the maintainability of the application and stating that the respondents would be put to much expenses and inconvenience if the witnesses were to be examin...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Lily Thomas Vs. V.K. IzuddIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ734
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint cannot be supported. The complainant alleged that the two accused had dishonestly and fraudulently caused an old and insane woman aged about 90 years to execute two false documents, one purporting to be a deed of revocation of an earlier settlement and the other purporting to be a lease deed in favour of the accused themselves and thereby committed the offence of forgery. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on oath, and then adjourned the matter for enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P. C But while adjourning the matter, he passed an order stating that the complaint had been taken on file temporarily under Section 402, I. P. C. The matter was adjourned to 25-7-1972 for examination of one of the witnesses cited in the complaint. This proposed examination is part of the enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P. C, On 25-7-1972, the witness, who was to be examined, was present in Court, but th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramachandran (Occupier), Ravendra Mills Limited and anr. Vs. Employ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ78
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. These three appeals have been heard together since they raise a common question of law and hence they are being disposed of by a single judgment. In each case the principal question is whether, when an additional building is constructed to install new spindles in an existing factory manufacturing yarn, the workers employed in the construction of the new factory can be held to be employees within the meaning of the expression in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and the owner of the building is bound to pay contribution for insurance under the Act.2. A.A.O. No. 260 of 1968 arises out of a petition (No. 12 of 1966) filed under Section 75 (2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Employees State Insurance Corporation to recover a sum of a little over thousand rupees towards the employees' contribution from Ravendra Mills Limited, for the period 1st January, 1961 to 30th September, 1963. The Mills were manufac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »