Chennai Court January 1975 Judgments
T.S. Santhanam Vs. Expenditure-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR355(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramaprasada Rao J. in Writ Petition No. 3582 of 1967--T. S. Santhanam v. Expenditure-tax Officer : [1973]87ITR582(Mad) . The appellant was the writ petitioner, who sought a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondent from making a revised assessment on him in pursuance of a notice under Section 15(4) read with Section 16(b) of the Expenditure-tax Act, dated October 25, 1968. The learned judge declined to issue the writ and hence this appeal.2. The facts are in a short compass. The assessment year under consideration is 1961-62, the relevant previous year ending on March 31, 1961. The assessee along with his four sons constituted a joint Hindu family, which was partitioned in June, 1957. After the partition, the petitioner submitted a return under the Expenditure-tax Act with his status as 'individual' and declaring a taxable expenditure of Rs. 19,559. During the relevant previous year he performed his daughter's marriage on...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR357(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference arose out of the estate duty proceedings consequent on the demise of R. M. Suadaram on May 14, 1960. The deceased was a member of the Indian Civil Service. There were certain special regulations relating to the provident fund of the non-European members thereof. The said non-European members of the Indian Civil Service had to subscribe either to the Indian Civil Service Family Pension Fund or to the Indian Civil Service (Non-European Members) Provident Fund. The deceased subscribed to the Indian Civil Service (Non-European Members) Provident Fund and at the time of his death the amount, which was to his credit, was Rs. 1,04,794. He had nominated his wife as the person entitled to receive the amount in the event of his death before retirement. Accordingly, the amount was paid to her.2. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty brought this amount to tax under Section 15 of the Estate Duty Act on his death. The Appellate Controller confirmed the assessment. ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Bhashyam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1715
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The petitioner who is the accused before the V Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, in C. C. No. 12050 of 1973, has filed this revision petition, challenging the order of the staid Court, allowing the petition of the complainant for the recall of D.W. 1, the Salesman of the accused's firm under Section 540, Cr. P. C. for the purpose of filing the counterfoils of certain bills. The learned Assistant State Prosecutor has filed an application before the lower court on 28-2-1974, on behalf of the complainant, to recall D.W. 1 who had already been examined on 6-2-1974, for the purpose of marking certain bills in the bill book wherein Exs. P-2 and P-3 had already been marked. The said application was filed after the case was posted for judgment. It was resisted by the accused on various grounds. The learned Magistrate, allowed the application, observing as follows-Notwithstanding the fact that the present application for the recall of D.W. 1 has been made rather belated...
Tag this Judgment!Parasumanna Lakshmanier Vs. P.L. Krishnamachary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ452
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In Appeal No. 286 of 1970, the first defendant in O.S. No. 456 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the appellant; the second defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 287 of 1970; and defendants 5 to 7 are the appellants in Appeal No. 272 of 1971. Parasumanna Lakshmanier the first defendant was adopted to one Parasumanna Chakrapani Iyer. The plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are his sons; the second defendant is his wife; and defendants 5 to 7 are his daughters. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for partition, including in the plaint, three schedules A, B and C.-A. schedule relating to immovable properties, B schedule to moveables and C schedule to outstandings. He claims an 1/4th share in all such properties delimited by him in the various schedules which according to him are joint family properties. It is common ground that the first defendant was adopted to Chakrapani Iyer. The plaintiff's case is that Chakrapani Iyer, w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Pattukottai Municipality Vs. Chandrasekaran (Minor), Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad50; (1975)2MLJ251
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Commissioner of Pattukottai municipality against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J., in Writ Petition No. 148 of 1972. The writ petition was filed by minor Chandrasekaran represented by his father and guardian Natanam Chettiar for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent-municipality to forbear from demolishing the petitioner's building in Section No. 68/A-5 of Pattukottai village.2. The respondent herein commenced putting up a construction in Section No. 68/A-5 within the municipal limits of Pauttkottai village. On the 4th of December, 1970 he applied to the municipality for permission to put up a godown over the land and submitted building plans for the purpose. Before sanction of the plan, the respondent started construction on the 4th of December, 1970 and a door frame on the site was fixed on 15th of December, 1970. As the respondent had commenced building without getti...
Tag this Judgment!The Registrar of Trade Unions, Union Territory of Pondicherry Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ347
S. Maharajan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of the Principal District Judge of Pondicherry, which was rendered under the following circumstances.2. The Employees of the Pondicherry Government Press constituted themselves into the Government Press Employees' Union and under Section 5 of the Trade Unions Act, applied to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Pondicherry, for registration of the trade union. The Commissioner of Labour, Pondicherry, who happens to be also the Registrar of Trade Unions, sent a communication to the Secretary of the Government Press Employees' Union on 1st July, 1971, regretting his inability to register the trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1962. The ground given by the Registrar for refusing to register the application was, 'the present functions of the Government Press, Pondicherry, do not come within the meaning of trade or business'. Aggrieved by this order, the Secretary of the Government Press Employees' Trade Union f...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatamuniappa Chettiar Vs. M.G.R. Lakshminarasimhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ475
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal under Letters Patent from a judgment of Venkatadri, J., raises an interesting question of law, to wit, whether a transferee from a decree-holder-purchaser in execution of a money decree in his favour of the equity of redemption of a mortgagor is entitled to be subrogated under Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act. The properties in question were subject to five mortgages executed one after the other. The suit out of which the appeal before us by the plaintiff arises, was to enforce the 5th mortgage in his favour. The 4th defendant, who was a transferee from the Court - auction - purchaser of the equity of redemption in execution of the money decree, claimed priority on the ground that he had redeemed the first four mortgages. The first two Courts agreed in decreeing the suit and declined to allow the claim of priority by the 4th defendant. Venkatadri, J., in the Second Appeal was of the view that the 4th defendant could not be regarded as a mortg...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India, represented by the Agent Vs. the Additional Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1975
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ159Mad
Ismail, J.1. The second respondent herein was appointed as a temporary cashier in the service of the petitioner-Bank at Coonoor for one month from 10-11-1971 retaining a discretion in the agent of the Bank to extend that period. The second respondent was retained in service till 10-2-1973 on which date his services were terminated. The second respondent preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Before the first respondent, the petitioner contended that the termination of the services of the second respondent was for a reasonable cause, because according to the Regulations applicable to the post of cashier in the Bank, a candidate should have passed a certain test and though the second respondent sat for the test on 30-7-1972 he did not pass the test; that in the vacancy another person, who passed the test, had been appointed; and that, therefore, that would constitute a re...
Tag this Judgment!A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar and Co. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR390(Mad)
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellants in C.As. Nos. 466 and 481 of 1972 are accused 1, A.D. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar and Company, accused 2, A.D. Jawaharlal Pandian, and accused 3, A.D. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar in C.C. Nos. 44986 and 40180 of 1969, on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. They were tried along with accused 4 to 9 for offences under the Income-tax Act, criminal conspiracy, etc., in both the cases and accused 4 to 9 were acquitted.C.A. No. 466 of 1972 (C.C. No. 44986 of 1969)2. In this case, accused 1 was convicted under charge No. 1 for an offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act and accused 2 and 3 were convicted under charges Nos. 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under each conviction, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under each conviction. It was directed that if accused 1 failed ...
Tag this Judgment!Sampoornam and anr. Vs. Arjunan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1466
ORDERRatnavelpandian, J.1. The petitioners herein are the wife and son of the respondent. They applied before the court of the Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem, for granting maintenance to them, in M. C. No. 25 of 1971, and the court on 5-7-1971, ordered that the respondent should pay maintenance amounts of Rs. 25/- and Rs. 10/- per month to the first and second petitioners respectively. The respondent has been paying these amounts as ordered. At the time of the passing of the said order, the respondent was working as a temporary helper in the Mettur Aluminium Co, on a daily wage of Rs. 5.85. Not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance, the petitioners filed M C. No. 462 of 1973, before the same court, praying for enhancement of the monthly maintenance to Rs. 75 and Rs. 45 to the first and second petitioners respectively on the ground that the respondent has been absorbed on a permanent basis as a workshop assistant on a monthly salary of Rs. 310.60. The responden...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »