Chennai Court March 1975 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 Official Assignee Vs. S.P. Kannappa Mudaliar (Deceased) by Bagiamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ115
S. Mohan, J.1. The following facts required to be noted for a proper appreciation of the issue involved in this matter. On 24th September, 1957 the respondent herein executed a general power of attorney in favour of the insolvent (Manicka Mudaliar) wherein one of the powers that is given is, to the purchase or sell the properties, to borrow and to lend and to execute necessary document in that regard.2. On 21st December, 1967 the respondent herein lent a sum of Rs. 25,000 to the insolvent which was repaid to her on the 12th of July, 1972 and on the 27th July, 1972 the debtor (Manicka Mudaliar) filed a petition for adjudication and the actual order of adjudication is dated the 28th July, 1972. Under these circumstances, it is contended by the learned Official Assignee that this payment just 15 or 16 days prior to the actual order of adjudication would amount to fraud-lent preference within Section 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and is therefore liable to be set aside. In the ...
Pettai Co-operative Milk Supply Ltd., Represented by Its President, R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ488
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order of Ismail, J. The learned Judge dismissed the appellant's petition on the ground that the question as to whether the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct payment of gratuity to the second respondent after the enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, I972, was not raised before the Labour Court.2. The second respondent was an employee of the appellant. He resigned with effect from 26th December, 1972. He claimed gratuity at a particular rate and asked the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, to compute it in terms of money under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A cryptic counter-statement was filed by the appellant. All that was stated there was this:This respondent submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The petitioner ought to have filed this petition before the proper Court. On this ground alone, this petition should be dismissed.It may be noted that in the counter sta...
Rukmini Mills Limited Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC425(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue. The appellant-company is carrying on business in manufacturing and sale of yarn in Madurai District within the State of Tamil Nadu. It claimed that it has depots at Bombay, Nagpur, Calcutta and Burhanpur. It also effected sales during the assessment year 1964-65 through these alleged depots in other States as follows :Bombay ... Rs. 13,11,303.09Burhanpur ... Rs. 43,771.00Calcutta ... Rs. 18,95,807.09Nagpur ... Rs. 2,63,014.97In the return for this assessment year under the Central Sales Tax Act, the appellant returned only a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,33,681.20. But in respect of the above set-out sales, it claimed exemption on the ground that they were depot sales and not inter-State sales. This contention was accepted by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, except in regard to a turnover of Rs. 35,774.98. Even this turnover of Rs. 35,774.98 was held as not inter-State sales by the Appellate Assistan...
Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Vs. the Pudukkottai Textiles Li ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC544(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent-assessee was originally granted in the assessment order exemption on the purchase of cotton from Messrs. Rallis India Limited, Coimbatore, to an extent of Rs. 1,22,906.20. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirumayam, initiated proceedings to revise the assessment on the ground that the said turnover which is covered by two transactions dated 23rd August, 1960, are local purchases and as such liable to be included in the taxable turnover. After considering the objections filed by the assessee the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer confirmed his earlier view and held that they were not inter-State purchases. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal took the view that the transactions are inter-State purchases and that, therefore, not liable to be taxed.2. The relevant contract entered into between the respondent-assessee and the Rallis India Limited, Coimbatore, who are within the State...
K.R. Ahmed Shah Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ932
Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appeal has been preferred by the accused Ahmed Shah who was convicted under Section 135 (b) Clause II of the Customs Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Poonamallee. The revision petition has been filed by the Assistant Collector or Customs, Madras, in the same case for enhancement of the sentence on the appellant.2. The facts of the case are briefly these:3. The appellant arrived along with other passengers at pore, at about 9,30 or 10 p.m. on 7-2-1970. P- W. 1 the Air Customs Officer, Meenambakkam Airport was on duty at ^the airport at the baggage counter. The ' passengers including the appellant proceeded to the counter with their baggage. P.W. 1 asked the appellant to separate his own baggage and accordingly, the appellant separated one bag claiming it as his own and produced it for his examination. P.W. 1 asked him to give a declaration. The appellant gave a written declaration in the form given to him vide...
Y. Venkanna Choudary Vs. Government of India, by Military Estates Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ103
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The matter is placed before us by the Master for a decision on the proper Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The appelant's land was requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Aggrieved by the alleged inadequacy of compensation under Section 8 as determined by the Arbitrator, the appeal has been preferred under Section 11. The contention is that as this Act makes a difference between requisitioning and acquisition, it should be borne in mind in determining the scope of Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act.2. Section 3 of the Requisitioning Act provides for the power to requisition any immovable property and on such requisitioning, the appropriate authority can under Section 4 take possession. Rights over the requisitioned property are defined by Section 5. Release from requisitioning is made under Section 6. Where the property requisitioned needs to be acquired for a public pu...
The Collector of Madras Vs. E.K. Pattabirama Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad343; (1976)1MLJ178
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In these four appeals preferred by the Government, common questions arise. The properties which are the subject-matter of these four appeals are comprised in Survey Numbers 29, 30/1, 30/2, 31, 32 and 34. The Extents acquired in each of the above survey fields can be catalogued thus:In S. No. 29 Ac. 2 34 centsIn S. No. 30/1 Ac. 2 33 centsIn S. No. 30/2 Ac. 2 33 centsIn S. No. 31 Ac. 0 72 centsIn S. No. 32 Ac. 9 91 centsIn S. No. 34 Ac. 1 79 cents.The above properties were acquired for the purpose of extending the Industrial Estate at Guindy. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 29th September, 1965 the declaration under Section 6, on 18th July, 1966 and on 3rd April, 1967 the properties were taken possession of by the State Government. The Land Acquisition Officer, who enquired into the market value of the properties, the superstructures, the wells and the interests of other affected parties, gave a compensation of Rs. 1,500 pe...
Rajammal Vs. Chinnathal Alias Mariyayi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad4; (1975)2MLJ155
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukkottai is the appellant herein. She instituted the suit against the respondent on a mortgage Exhibit A-1, dated 16th November, 1964 said to have been executed by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 8,000. The plaint itself stated that the respondent had repaid four sums of Rs. 50 each on 15th April, 1968; 30th April, 1968. 21st June, 1968 and 30th July, 1968 towards interest and the suit was filed for recovery of the balance. One of the several defences that was put forward by the respondent was that she was not aware of the execution and due attestation of the document and that she had not even seen the appellant herein. She also denied the due execution and valid attestation of the mortgage Exhibit A-l. On this question, admittedly no attesting witness was examined as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the denial of execution by the respondent. P.W. ...
U. Gopalan and ors. Vs. the Accountant-general
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ380
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As all the above writ petitions raise practically the same issues, they are disposed of together.2. All the petitioners bad joined the office of the Accountant-General, Madras as Upper Division Clerks. Later they had passed the Subordinate Account Service examination after undergoing the requisite training in public works division. Then they were promoted and posted as S. A. S. Accountants.3. By an office order dated 18th July, 1972 the petitioners and others were posted as S. A. S. Divisional Accountants in the various Public Works Divisions of the State and Central Governments. The validity of the said order has been questioned in these writ petitions.4. It has been contended by the petitioners. (1) that though the said office order purports to be a posting order, in effect and in substance it amounts to an order of reduction in rank; and (2) that the said office order is illegal as it is benefit of legal authority and it also amounts to a colourable exercise ...
S. Suppiah and anr. Vs. Century Flour Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1975
Reported in: [1975]45CompCas450(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This appeal by the petitioners is from an order of Sethuraman J. The petition was made under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956, for appointment of an advocate-chairman to preside over the requisitioned general meeting of Century Flour Mills Ltd., the respondent, to be held on September 14, 1974, and for certain other consequential or incidental reliefs. The company has been managed by two managing directors, P. Govindaswami and S. P. Sithambaram. The general body appointed them as such at its meeting held on April 12, 1972, and the appointment was duly approved under the Companies Act. In May, 1974, or thereabouts differences arose between the managing directors about the affairs of the company. Govindaswami took up the stand that the other managing director had vacated office both as director and managing director, by reason of the contravention of the provisions of Section 295 of the Companies Act. Consequent to the stand taken by him he pressed that the enti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »