Chennai Court August 1974 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.
S.P.A. Suruliappa Nadar Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT61(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash an order passed by the third respondent directing recovery of an amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner in certain adjudication proceed ings under the Customs Act.2. The only point that is raised in this petition is that an appeal against the order of adjudication is pending and no final orders have been passed in that appeal and, therefore, the . third respondent cannot seek to recover the amount of penalty.3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not obtain an order of stay from the appellate authority and the mere filing of an appeal is not an automatic stay of the order appealed against. So long as there is no stay order against the enforcement of the order of adjudication, the third respondent who is the Recovery Officer is entitled to proceed to recover the amount of penalty imposed in the order of adjudication. It is even now open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and obta...
Hemalatha Textiles Limited Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1974
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ497Mad
Varadarajan, J.1. The petitioner in E. I. O. P. No. 3 of 1971, on the file of the Employees State Insurance Court, Madras, (City Civil Court), is the appellant. -The petition was filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, for a declaration that the employees of the appellant in its head office at Madras are not employees within the meaning of the Act. The appellant Hemalatha Textiles Limited is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its factory at Pedakkani in Guntur District and its head office at Madras. The appellant's case is that the head office is not doing anything in connection with the work of the factory and that the employees are, therefore, not Govered by the provisions of the Act, This was opposed by the respondent and the respondent further contended that he had not been properly described in the petition. The appellant's contentions have not been upheld by the Court below before whom two contentions were raised during a...
R.J. Mohamed Jacub Sahib (Died) and ors. Vs. the Indian Bank Ltd., Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad220; (1975)1MLJ315
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 983-16, as damages. The revision-petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit sold certain goods to a buyer at Berhampur and the documents were negotiated through the Indian Bank at Erode. The buyer at Berhampur cleared the documents and took delivery of the goods. The price of the goods paid by the buyer has reached the plaintiff and there is no dispute regarding the same. However, the C form issued by the buyer at Berhampur did not reach the plaintiff at Erode and in the absence of the C form the plaintiff had to pay sales tax at 7 per cent, on the value of the goods as against one per cent if such C form was produced. The sum of Rs. 900 and odd claimed as damages is the difference between 7 per cent tax paid by the plaintiff and one per cent. which he was bound to pay if the C form was available. Plaintiff impleaded the Indian Bank as the first defendant and the Stat...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Government Rev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ278
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. Though in form the-writ petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed, everything stated in the course of the judgment was against the Government and that is how they have filed these appeals. The Sivaganga Zamin was notified on 7th September,, 1949. The notification included Kattanur group of estates and it was described as an undertenure. But in this group, Mudikondan was not included.... On 23rd November, 1957, a fresh notification was made treating the estate as Zamindari, including Mudikondan.... On 12th December, 1957, Mudikondan was taken over under Section 2 (3). of Madras Act XXVI of 1948. A petition to quash the notification failed; but on appeal it was held that Mudikondan was an undertenure and, therefore, the appeal should be allowed to remove the error in description of the character of Mudikondan. That was in July, 1963 In view of this judgment, Government, by a fresh notification dated 8th October, 1964, modified the earlier notification of 23rd...
V.R. Nathan Vs. Mac Laboratories (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad189; (1975)1MLJ119
Venkataraman, J. 1. These are applications by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 3102 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court. Madras and the appellant in A. S. 371 of 1969 pending before us, for permission to amend the plaint. We shall state the facts more fully when disposing of the appeal itself. For the purpose of the present applications it is enough to state the following facts. The defendants Mac Laboratories (P.) Ltd., are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products in India and are also importers of some pharmaceutical products manufactured abroad. On 17-11-1951 they appointed the plaintiff. V. R. Nathan, as the sole distributors of their products for the then composite State of Madras. Mysore and Travancore-Cochin, with a commission of ten per cent of the profits. The defendants were to bear the organisational expenses etc. The plaintiff claims that he invested a large sum of money and did good business for the defendants and that in recognition thereof, for the mutual benefit Of bo...
In Re: Sornavelayutham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: 1977CriLJ421
ORDERKailasam, J.1. On a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court, the appeal has been placed before a Full Bench on the orders of the learned Chief Justice.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the Public Prosecutor expressed a doubt as to the legality of the posting of the appeal before the Full Bench. Mr. Vanamamalai, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that under the amended Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proviso to the section enables one of the Judges constituting the Bench to require the appeal to be re-heard and decided by a larger Bench of Judges. This proviso is applicable to cases that are heard under the new Code. The present appeal was pending at the time when the new Code came into force and therefore, according to Section 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was in for...
In Re: Sorna Velayutham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ267
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.64. On a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court, the appeal has been placed before a Full Bench on the orders of the learned Chief Justice.65. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the Public Prosecutor expressed a doubt as to the-legality of the posting of the appeal before the Full Bench. Mr. Vanamamalai, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that under the amended Section 392 of the Criminal Procedure-Code, proviso to the section enables one of the Judges constituting the Bench to. require the appeal to be re-heard and decided by a larger Bench of Judges. This proviso is applicable to cases that are heard under the new Code. The present appeal was pending at the time when the new Code came into force, and, therefore, according to Section 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appeal shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal; Procedure Code, 1898, which was in for...
S.M. Krishna Pillai and ors. Vs. K. Bhoopai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ419
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Makkavur Pillai married twice and through his first wife he had a daughter, by name Annammal, and a son, by name S. M. Kannappa. Through his second wife, he had one son by name S. M. Krishna Pillai. In this action, the wife of S. M. Kannappa is the first plaintiff and S. M. Krishna Pillai is the first defendant. Annammal married one M. Kannappa Pillai. Annammal husband died in or about 1928. There was no issue to M. Kannappa Pillai through Annammal. Annanrmal, however, purchased three properties, one of which is the subject-matter of this suit. One such property secured by her was settled in favour of Rajammal, the first plaintiff herein, under Exhibit B-14. Another property was settled by her, under Exhibit B-13, in favour of the first defendant. The third property, which is the subject-matter of the suit was left by her without making any disposition thereto when she died on 24th July, 1963. After Annammal's death, Rajammal who is none else than the sister of An...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR251(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee in this case is a public limited company and it has several activities. Originally, the business was carried on in partnership and then it was converted into a public limited company. Somewhere in the year 1939 a decision was taken to convert this company into a private company. At this stage two agreements of the same date dated March 14, 1939, came into existence. These two agreements evidence the following facts : One F. J, Stanes, who was the then managing director of the company and was about to retire from his office of managing director and his wife, Margaret W. Stanes, were joint holders of 1,679 ordinary shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in the assessee-company. They were desirous of disposing of their shares. The company was anxious to avoid the increase of membership which might be resulted if the Stanes were to sell their shares without any restriction. The company was desirous of also prohibiting F. J. Stanes, the managing director, from...
N. Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. K.R. Chinnikrishnan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad333
1. The defendant appeals. The suit out of which the appealarises was laid by Chinnikrishnan Chettiar, the plaintiff, against the appellant Ethirajulu Naidu for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 9850 allegedly due on an account stated by the plaintiff and signed by the defendant on 30-5-1964. In the plaint, it was alleged that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 7000 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum thereon. According to the plaint, on 30-5-1964, the plaintiff demanded from the defendant the repayment of Rs. 8330 representing Rs. 7000 on account of principal and Rupees 1330 on account of interest. On the date of demand, 30-5-1964, the defendant is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest and demanded an account, whereupon an account stated was prepared then and there by the plaintiff. The defendant after verifying the same put his signature to it on the same day, 30-5-1964, It was further alleged in the plaint that on 30-3-396...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »