Chennai Court July 1976 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.
M. Shanmugasundaram Vs. Kancheepuram Vellalar Silk Handloom Weavers Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ620
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2846 of 1976 has been filed by the former President of a Co-operative Society situated in Kancheepuram, to declare the issue of search warrants against him to be materially irregular and with out jurisdiction. While admitting that petition, interim stay of the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput was granted in Crl Misc. Petition No. 2847 of 1976. Crl Misc. Petition No. 3062 of 1976 has been filed by the respondent in the main petition for vacating the stay.2. As the former President of the Kanjeepuram Vallalar Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society, the Petitioner was suspected of having committed certain offences such as criminal breach of trust, falsification of accounts etc. Hence an application made by the present President of the Society under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chinglepu...
E. K. M. K. Nawabjan Vs. Krishnan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ382
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of the lower Court rejecting the appellant's petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale of a house held on 14th August, 1972 in execution of a decree in O.S. No. 445 of 1969.2. The 2nd respondent obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 448 of 1969 and to realise the decree amount he filed E.P. No. 33 of 1972 for sale of the property. The property was actually sold on 14th August, 1972 for Rs. 27,700. The appellant who was the 3rd defendant in the suit had filed E.A. No. 98 of 1973 to set aside the said sale on three grounds (1) that there was no proper service of notice on him before the sale was ordered; (2) that there was no proper publicity given to the proposed sale of the property; (3) that the property which is worth more than Rs. 60,000 was sold only for a sum of Rs. 27,700 which was resulted in considerable loss and prejudice to...
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT16(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. These two writ petitions are for prohibition and they arise under the following circumstances. The petitioners carry on business inter alia in the manufacture of textiles, having a composite mills both for spinning and weaving. Among the various kinds of fabrics manufactured by the petitioners, cotton nylon duck is also one. It is made out of nylon and cotton and is used in the manufacture of T.V.C. belting which in turn is used as a conveyor belt by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and in coal mines. This product is manufactured in accordance with the specifications and requirements of a few customers among whom Dunlop India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dunlop) and National Rubber . (hereinafter referred to as N.R.M.) are the principal purchasers. The said companies used to enter into contracts with the petitioners for the supply of nylon cotton belting duck. The percentage of nylon content in the belting duck will range between 10 and 60. The nylon was supplied by Dunl...
S.R. Ramasami Gounder Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ241
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This revision petition is under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 read with Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1961 by issuing a notice under Section 50 (3) (a) (ii) dated 11th May, 1971 called upon the petitioner as the head of the family consisting of himself and his wife Visalakshi Ammal to submit necessary returns in connection with their agricultural holdings for the purpose of producing the same in the usual enquiry for fixing the ultimate ceiling limit which the members of the family unit can have. Pursuant to the said notice, necessary draft statements were prepared by the competent authority and the petitioner Sri S.R. Ramasami Gounder filed his objections thereto and the Authorised Officer by his order dated 18th March, 1973 fixed the ceiling limit. The Tribunal agreed with him. Hence this revision.2. It is necessary to state a few facts prior to the issuance of the ...
N. Muthuswami Naidu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ204
ORDERKailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by a tenant against the order of Ramanujam, J., dismissing his petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in G.O, Ms. No. 1998, Home dated 12th August, 1974 and to quash the same.2. The appellant is the tenant of shops bearing Door Nos. 100, 101, 101-A, B and E belonging to the second respondent, Sri Swami Nellaiappar Sri Kanthimathi Ambal Devasthanam, through its Executive Officer, Tirunelveli, The second respondent Devasthanam issued notices to certain tenants including the appellant terminating their tenancies and filed suits for eviction. It was the contention of the tenants that the impugned Government Order, G.O, Ms. No. 1998, Home dated 12th August, 1974, which was issued under Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960) exempting all buildings owned by the Hindu Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable institutions from all the provisi...
D. Srinivasan Chettiar Vs. Secretary, Ramanathapuram Market Committee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ433
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. In this writ petition for certiorari, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 27th May, 1976, wherein he is called upon, pursuant to the judgment of Natarajan, J., to take out a licence under section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is merely hulling paddy in the rice mill called 'Srinivasa Rice Mill' at Manamadurai and no question of taking out a licence would arise. What Mr. G. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends is that the activity of the petitioner cannot be brought under the words 'processing of any agricultural produce' under section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner develops his argument saying that having regard to the preamble and the purpose of the Act being to secure a fair price for the producer's agricultural produce and to avoid middle-men, unless the processing is in relation to the sa...
E.S.i.C. Vs. R. Sreedhara Panicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ280Mad
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 6th August, 1971 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagercoil, holding that the respondent's factory will sot fall within the definition of factory, in Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1968, herein, after referred to as the Act on an application filed by the respondent under Sections 75 and 77 of that Act.2. The respondent is manufacturing certain ayurvedic preparations is his premises called 'Amrithapradayani. Vydisasala', Vetturu Madam, Nagercoil, where more than 20 persons have been employed. The said manufacturing premises of the respondent was inspected by the Inspectors appointed under the Act, on 26th February, 1966 and they came to the conclusion that the premises will come under the definition of 'factory' in the Act on the ground that water is pumped out from the well with the use of two horse power electric motor for the purpose of manufacture of medicines, and therefore, the manufacturing p...
M.R. Ramamurthy Vs. the Director of Supplies and Disposal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ237
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as lower division clerk in the Government of India service on 1st March, 1943. He was confirmed on 21st May, 1956. He was promoted as upper division clerk on 30th March, 1957. His confirmation as upper division clerk took place on 24th January, 1962. Subsequently he was promoted as upper division clerk in charge on 1st February, 1974. He was further promoted as Public Relations Officer (U.D.C. Selection Grade) in the scale of Rs. 425-640 on 9th July, 1975. Even prior to this, he was serving as Public Relations Officer from 11th November, 1974 to 7th July, 1975.2. The petitioner's service conditions as regards the fixation of seniority are governed by the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 22nd June, 1949 bearing No. 30/44/48 apptts. Another Memorandum was also issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 9/11/55-RPS, dated 22nd December, 1959.3. The third respondent was appointed as lower division clerk on 23rd March,...
The Employees' State Corporation, represented by the Regional Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ477
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 6th August, 1971 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Nagercoil, holding that the respondent's factory will not fall within the definition of factory, in Section 2 (12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act on an application filed by the respondent under Sections 75 and 77 of that Act.2. The respondent is manufacturing certain ayurvedic preparations in his premises called 'Amrithapradayani. Vydisasala'. Vetturu Madam, Nagercoil, where more than 20 persons have been employed. The said manufacturing premise s of the respondent was inspected by the Inspectors appointed under the Act, on 26th February, 1966 and they came to the conclusion that the premises will come under the definition of 'factory' in the Act. on the ground that water is pumped out from the well with the use of two horse power electric motor for the purpose of manufacture of medicines, and therefore, the manufacturing ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. C. Thiruvenkata Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR661(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Central Act 18 of 1958), at the instance of the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras-II, has referred the question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the deed of settlement effected by the assessee on July 1, 1963, is really a will not attracting the provisions of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' 2. From the very question extracted above, it is clear that the only point involved is the construction of the document dated July 1, 1963, executed by the assessee-respondent and his wife. Since what is involved is the construction of the document and the Tribunal has dealt with the matter in great detail after referring to the concept and connotation of a will and a gift found in several text books and also considering how particular documents have been construed by courts as a will or a gi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »