Chennai Court March 1975 Judgments
Vellapandi and ors. Vs. Annathaiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ157
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District-Magistrate (J) of Tirunelveli, in Crl. P: 7 of 1973 on his file, setting 1 aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shencottah, dismissing the complaint under S- 203, Criminal P.C. filed by the respondent complainant in C. C. No. 16 of 1973, against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 494 and 109. I. P. C, read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the allegation that the complainant is the lawfully wedded wife of accused 1 (first petitioner herein) and that while the said marriage between them is still subsisting, he married one Piramavee as his second wife and then he (accused 1) married accused 2 (second petitioner) about li years ago, as his third wife on the 12th of Ani, at 10 a- m. at Courtallara and that accused 3 to 11 abetted the commission of the said offence of bigami.2. The learned District Magistrate, on setting aside the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Reddiar Vs. Adilatchumy Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ15
S. Maharajan, J.1. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal against the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Pondi-cherry, in A.S. No. 12 of 1972, confirming the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, in O.S. No. 277 of 1968 and dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs.2. The plaintiff, Ramaswamy Reddiar, sued Adilatchumy Ammal (first defendant) and Appasamy Nayagar (second defendant), husband of the first defendant, for annulment of the sale-deed dated 10th September, 1958, executed by one Kamalammal in favour of the first defendant in respect of the suit property and for recovery of possession of the property with costs.3. The suit itself was filed under the following circumstances : The suit property originally belonged to one Rayalu Reddiar, who died on 26th October, 1946, after disposing of all his properties under a notarial testament (Exhibit A-1) dated 10th April, 1946. The testator begot no issue. At the time of the will and of his death, he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Fenner Woodroffe and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]102ITR665(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee--M/s. Fenner Woodroffe & Company Ltd. (since changed to Gordon Woodrofle (Belting) Ltd.), Madras, was incorporated in India as a private limited company in 1959. It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of leather belting and other industrial leather, having been licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. The assessee-company entered into an agreement onJuly 22, 1959, with M/s. Henry F. Cockill & Sons Ltd., a company incorporated in England, The relevant portions of the agreement read as follows :'(A) Cockill has for many years been engaged in the manufacture of (inter alia) the product (as defined in Clause 1 of this agreement) and during that time has discovered and acquired valuable secret processes and technical knowledge in connection with such manufacture.(B) The Indian company is proposing to undertake the manufacture of the product in India and has requested Cockill to make available to it Cockill's secret processes...
Tag this Judgment!Transformer and Switchgear Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR352(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated on November 28, 1956. They manufacture transformers at its factory at Adyar, Madras. This reference relates to the assessment year 1961-62 and the accounting year being the calendar year 1960. The assessee received technical assistance from a West German company (hereinafter called Dominit). The subject-matter of the assistance and the terms and conditions thereof are contained in an agreement dated December 28, 1956, executed by the assessee and the Dominit. The relevant portions of the agteement are as follows :'1. Whereas Transformer & Switchgear intends to establish at Madras, a factory for the manufacture of transformers, whereas Dominit disposes of procedures, designs, experience and technical know-how used in the field of manufacture of the transformers. Whereas Transformer and Switchgear desires that Dominit should render technical aid and assistance for the establishment, the starting of work and operating o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajeswari and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC134(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in cotton yarn at Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. In their return under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1963-64, they claimed exemption among others on a turnover of Rs. 2,50,439,17 on the ground that they were second inter-State sales effected by them by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another in pursuance of the earlier sales falling under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In respect of another turnover of Rs. 4,47,911.75, which also related to second inter-State sales by transfer of documents of title to such goods during their movement from one State to another, the petitioners claimed that in view of Section 15 of the Act, they were not liable for Central sales tax. Since these two items were alone disputed in this revision petition, it would be enough if we note the facts relating to these two items and the findings of...
Tag this Judgment!G. Bhuvaragavalu Vs. the Collector and Dt. Magistrate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1919
Kailasam, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issuer of a writ of Habeas Corpus by the son of P. Govindarajulu Naidu for directing the detenu Govindarajulu Naidu to be produced in court and set at liberty.2. The order of detention was passed on 5-2-1975 and the detenu was arrested on 7-2-1975. The memorandum of grounds was furnished to the detenu on his arrest. On behalf of the detenu, it is submitted that the grounds are not true and that they are totally vague and vitiating the entire order of detention.3. The order of detention made under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, mentions three instances on which tie Collector relied for coming to the conclusion that the detenu should be detained as he was acting prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.4. The first ground is that the detenu being a wholesaler in paddy and rice in licence No. 605 from 1971, in flagrant contravention of the Essential Commodi...
Tag this Judgment!N.E. Vedammal Vs. S.R. Krishnamoorthy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ482
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The second claimant in I.A.C. No. 118 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. The said land acquisition case is a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act made to the Court in respect of the compensation awarded for certain lands acquired by the Government. Having regard to the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is unnecessary to refer to the land acquisition proceedings themselves in detail.2. The case of the first claimant, who is the first respondent herein, was that the entire block of land of 6-15 acres belonged to him, the same having been purchased by his father-in-law in the Court-auction held in O. S. No. 525 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee, benami for him and taken possession of as early as 1941 ; that while so, one Rajagopala pillai claiming some right in the said property, trespassed into the same and started making some, alienations to various ...
Tag this Judgment!East India Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC370(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in cotton, cotton seeds, etc., with head office at Madurai and branches in various other places in this State. For the assessment year 1959-60, they reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 11,92,394.27 under the Central Sales Tax Act. On a check of the accounts, the assessing officer considered that a turnover of Rs. 7,45,140.97 relating to the sale of cotton which has not been included in the return is also liable to be assessed as a sale falling under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. After hearing the objections and on a consideration of the evidence available, the assessing officer held that that amount represented inter-State sales of cotton liable to be assessed at one per cent under Section 8(1) read with Section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal.2. In this revision, the first question that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. N. Sundaramony
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1975
Reported in: (1975)ILLJ453Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal raises a point with reference to which to the arguments are somewhat nicely balanced. The respondent, a B. Sc., graduate of the Madras University was employed between July 4,1970, and November 18, 1972, as a cashier in the Kuzhithurai branch of the appellant-bank. There wereintermittent breaks in the service. The last order of appointment dated November 10, 1972, receited that the respondent was appointed with effect from that date for a period of nine days on a salary of Rs. 200 per mensem and dearness and other allowances as applicable under the Desai Award. This followed certain terms and conditions, of which the first two are:(1) The appointment is purely a temporary one for a period of 9 days but may be terminated earlier, without assigning any reason therefor at the bank's discretion ;(2) The employment, unless terminated earlier, will automatically cease at the expiry of the period, i.e., 18-11-1972.There was the third condition, which prescribe...
Tag this Judgment!Rasappa Gounder Vs. G.N. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Mad386; (1975)2MLJ157
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession on the ground that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit properties entitled to the protection of the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts as now found by the courts below simply stated are as follows-The plaintiff is the second son of one Bagavati Gounden. The defendant leased the suit properties to the plaintiff and his father sometime in the year 1950. There is no dispute that both those lessees were contributing their physical labour and, therefore, they are cultivating tenants within the meaning of the Act. On 20-5-1968, the plaintiffs father Bagavathi Gounden died leaving three sons, including the plaintiff, four daughters and his wife as his legal heirs. Sometime after the death of Bagavathi Gounden, except the plaintiff the other two sons, daughters and wife purported to co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »