Chennai Court February 1976 Judgments
Management of Pioneer Estate Vs. A. Thangaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ281Mad
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution declining to interfere with an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai. A reference of an industrial dispute as to the propriety of the non-employment of one Thangaraj, an employee of the Pioneer Estate, Velayathavayal, was made for adjudication. He was a tapper, who was kept under suspension on the allegation that he and two others, on July 29, 1967, obstructed an estate lorry which carried rubber sheets. It is stated that unless the rubber sheets are subjected to further processing the entirety of the stock would become useless, A domestic enquiry was held which culminated in a finding that the charge against Thangaraj was proved and his dismissal from service. Before the Presiding Officer, one of the workman's defences was that the enquiry was conducted in his absence on September 2, 1967 and that he had no notice of the enquiry. He relied on Section 25 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Doraikannu Vs. General Manager, Parrya Corfectionery Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ183Mad
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The first respondent the General Manager, Parrys Confectionery Ltd.. Nellikuppam, successfully sought under Article 226 of the Constitution to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, which declined approval under proviso to Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the dismissal of the appellant from service quashed. There was a theft in the godown near the confectionery in E.I.D. Parry and Co., Nellikuppam at about 11.45 p.m. on 22nd November, 1968 of copper vessels and gun-metal articles Six persons wert prosecuted, three of them for committing the theft and three for abetting in the commission of the offence. The prosecution ended in an acquittal by the Sub-Magistrate of Panrutti. The Magistrate said thus-In the result I find this is a case in which the benefit of doubt could be given to the accused. I acquit them under Section 251(A)(ii), Civil Procedure Code.The manageme...
Tag this Judgment!Bherumal Hotchand Vs. P.V. Gandhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad141
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant herein is a guarantor and transferee of the stock-in-trade and business of the insolvent Messrs. Gitanjali a firm of partnership. The firm was dealing in textiles and it ran into debts. It had an overdraft account with the Bank of India. The eventual balance found due to the Bank from the insolvent as on 7-8-1971, was found to be Rs. 1 Lakh. The firm also had other debts, its total liabilities approximately amounting to Rs. 3,58,015. On 7-8-1971, the insolvent transferred its entire assets consisting of the stock-in-trade and the business in textiles to the appellant for a consideration of Rupees 1, 12,000. Out of this consideration, the appellant retained with himself a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for payment to the Bank of India and the balance of Rs. 12,000 he paid to the firm, which the Managing Director of the firm utilised for his own personal purposes. One P. V. Gandhi, one of the respondents before us filed a petition on 16-8-1971, for adjudicating the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Victoria Public Hall Trust Board by the Hony. Secretary, V. Karuppan, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ294
ORDERVeeraswami, C. J.1. The petitions are by the Victoria Public Hall Trust Board, Madras, to have the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax made under section 11 (2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, quashed. The origin of the trust, as stated in the affidavit in support of the petitions, is this. At a meeting convened by the Sheriff of Madras on 17th March, 1882, at Pachaiyappa's Hall, the citizens of Madras decided to have -a town hall in the City of Madras. They -approached the then Commissioner of the Corporation for a site in the Peoples Park for constructing a town hall. By resolutions of the Municipal Commissioner dated 21st February, 1883, 3rd September, 1884 and 24th September, 1885, a site measuring 57 grounds was granted to the Victoria Memorial Trust on a long lease of 99 years on a nominal rent of 8 annas per ground per annum. By a resolution of the inhabitants of Madras at a public meeting on 25th January, 1888, it was unanimously reso...
Tag this Judgment!Doraikannu Vs. the General Manager, Parrys Confectionery, Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ521
ORDERK. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The first respondent the General Manager, Parrys Confectionery Ltd., Nellikuppam, successfully sought under Article 226 of the Constitution to have the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, which declined approval under' proviso to Section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the dismissal of the appellant from service quashed. There was a theft in the go-down near the confectionery in E.I.D. Parry and Co., Nellikuppam at about 11-45 p.m. on 22nd November, 1968 of copper vessels and gun-metal articles. Six persons were prosecuted, three of them for committing the theft and three for abetting in the commission of the offence. The prosecution ended in an acquittal by the Sub Magistrate of Panrutti. The Magistrate said thus:In the result I find this is a case in which the benefit of doubt could be given to the accused. I acquit them under Section 251 (A) (ii), Civil Procedure Code.The ma...
Tag this Judgment!U. Abdul Jabbar and anr. Vs. Manonmani Pictures by Partner K.R.E. Patt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Mad368; (1976)2MLJ102
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. Respondents 4 and 5 in the Court below are the appellants. The first respondent had obtained a money-decree against the first respondent in the Court below, one S.S. Fakir Mohamed, in O.S. No. 322 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The decree was made on 8th October, 1964. Fakir Mohamed, the judgment-debtor, a film producer, ran into debts. He was also carrying on business as a beedi merchant. On 19th February, 1968, Fakir Mohamed and his son Habibur Rahiman the third respondent, on, the one hand, and the first appellant Abdul Jabbar on the other, entered into a partnership under the name and style of Majeeth Mark S.P.S. Beedi Factory Coimbatore Majeeth Mark S.P.S. Beedi Factory by partner Abdul Jabbar, the first appellant, figures as the second appellant. Fakir Mohamed died, on 18th January, 1972. His widow, the 2nd respondent instituted O.S. No. 48 of 1972 for dissolution of the firm and taking its accounts. Abdul Jab-tar was a party-de...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Velur Vaithinathaswami Devasthanam, Vaithiswarankoil by Its Sole a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ92
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. These civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the interlocutory orders passed under a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram on the 3rd December, 1975 wherein he rejected the interlocutory applications of the applicant to pass an order of temporary injunction and also to appoint a receiver pending disposal of the suit to take charge of the crops and the suit lands in this and future faslis, harvest the same through the respective defendants, and realise and secure the plaintiff's share of the lease paddy and deliver the same to the plaintiff.2. In order to appreciate the point involved in these civil miscellaneous appeals it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant is a public trust and the respondents are cultivating tenants under the appellant-trust. By an order dated 19th January, 1974 in I.A. Nos. 58 and 61 of 1974 in O.S. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 an interim receiver was appointed and that was appealed against to this Court in Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Velur Vaithinathaswami Devasthanam Vaithiswarankoil Vs. Arumugha Mudal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad202
1. These civil miscellaneous appeals are directed against the interlocutory order passed under a common judgment by learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram on the 3rd December, 1975 wherein he rejected the interlocutory application of the applicant to pass an order of temporary injunction and also to appoint a Receiver pending disposal of the suit to take charge of the crops on the suit lands in this and future faslis, harvest the same through the respective defendants, and realise and secure the plaintiff's share of the lease paddy and deliver the same to the plaintiff.2. In order to appreciate the point involved in these civil miscellaneous appeals it is necessary to state a few facts. The appellant is a public trust and the respondents are cultivating tenants under the appellant trust. By an order dated 19th January 1974 in I. A. Nos. 58 and 61 of 1974 in O. S. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 an interim Receiver was appointed and that was appealed against Nos. 76 and 77 of 1974 and pending those a...
Tag this Judgment!Mariarputham Nadachia Arputha Mary Vs. George and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ344
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The first defendant who failed in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondents filed the suit for demarcation of the boundaries between S. Nos. 4312 and 4211 of Valvachagoshtam Village, Kalkulam Taluk, and for putting up the northern boundary wall of S. No. 4315? at the cost of the appellant and the second defendant and for recovery of Rs. 10 as damages in respect of the cocoa, nuts taken away from the tree standing on S. No. 4212. S. No. 4312 belonging to the respondents lies south of S. No. 4311 belonging to the appellant. The case of the respondents was that there was a bund separating the two fields and that it was removed by the appellant and the second defendant on 32nd,May, 1967 and that the appellant too)s. away cocoa-nuts valued at Rs. 10 from the aforesaid cocoanut tree.2. The defence was that on the southern boundary of the appellant's property bearing S. No. 4211, there is small bund, now in ruins, and that it is used as a footpath and that t...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Subramania Chettiar and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC103(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees are dealers in paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1961-62, they returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,58,289.50 and Rs. 1,56,713.48 respectively. On a check of accounts, it was found that the account books disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 2,91,462.28 and the assessing officer adopted this figure adding another sum of Rs. 8,761.20 in respect of some deficit amount noticed. By an order dated 5th October, 1962, the assessing officer determined the total turnover at Rs. 3,00,223.48 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 1,65,995.39. For the assessment year 1962-63, similarly the assessing officer adopted the turnover as disclosed in the accounts as against the turnover returned adding a sum of Rs. 8,254.40 to the turnover disclosed in the accounts on account of some discrepancy in the stock noticed and determined the total turnover at Rs. 4,55,529.67 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 3,40,327.14. This assessment order is dated 29th August, 1963. In Ju...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »