Chennai Court October 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax and ors. Vs. M. Ramalingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ327
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This second appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law which have been framed as follows:1. Whether the suit instituted on the foot that a fresh cause of action arose on the date when the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was given is right or whether the cause of action is de die in diem and whether the presently instituted action need not take cognizance of the rejection order made by the authorities under Exhibit A-9 as early as in 1962.2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.2. Let us take the second point as the main point since, if the suit is barred by limitation then the other aspects do not come up for consideration. The first defendant surprisingly had not taken up the plea of limitation in the written statement and therefore, the trial Court did not frame any issue regarding limitation. After the appeal was filed, C.M. P. No. 86-A of 1978 was filed for raising the additional ground regarding limitation and therefore the Lower ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Kunchithapadam Vs. Addl. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ230Mad
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the same. He was employed under the 2nd respondent-management as a assistant in the accounts department. On certain allegations of misconduct the petitioner was dismissed by the 2nd respondent from service by an order dated 16-2-1966. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 41(2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act before the Addl., Commissioner for Workmens Compensation challenging the order of termination from service. The appeal was allowed and the order of termination was set aside. Thereafter the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 969 of 1967 before the Addl. Labour Court, Madras the first respondent herein under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming back wages for the period from 16-2-1966 to 13-7-1967 in the sum of Rs. 2, 957.60 and another sum of Rs. 8,400 as the benefit of reinstatement till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. When this petition was pending the 2nd resp...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. New Ajantha Wines
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1978
Reported in: [1979]44STC327(Mad)
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. This tax case is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, who, in an appeal under Section 36(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, was of the view that the respondent-assessee was entitled to certain concession in the matter of payment of tax on the assessed turnover. It is as against a part of such relief granted to the assessee that the State has come up with this petition to revise the said order.2. The respondent-assessee is a dealer in Indian-made foreign liquor. It appears that he took over the entire stock of one Manohara Wines, which stock admittedly as quantified was of the value of Rs. 22,004.11. The said stock was transferred on 31st May, 1973. The assessing officers sought to assess the respondent on such stock taken over by him from Manohara Wines. The consistent case of the assessee was that, out of the above stock so taken over by him from Manohara Wines, goods of the value of Rs. 8,275.11 had...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C. Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ343Mad
S. Mohan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal, raises an interesting question as to the liability of the respondent in the civil miscellaneous appeal, viz., Bharat Pulverising Mills (P) Ltd., No. 1074, T.H. Road, Madras-19, to make necessary contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By letter dated 19th March, 1974, the appellant called upon the respondent to make the contributions under the Act in respect of attendance bonus, incentive payments, payments to contractors and certain allowances and petty cash payments of a casual nature. The respondent objected to the demand. Thereafter, the Revenue Recovery Act was set in motion, and the contributions due on the above accounts were sought to be recovered. This necessitated the respondent to file a petition under Section 75(1) of the Act for a declaration that the payments like attendance bonus, incentive payments, payment to contractors for contract work done and casual payments a...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras Ii Division Vs. Prit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS222D
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. Clr. R.C. No. 853 of 1973 has been preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madas II Division, Madras purely on the question of sentence imposed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee in his judgment, passed in C.C. No. 1084 of 1972 dated 28.5. 1973.2. The short facts of this case are that a lorry ADT 2007 was searched on 21.10.1971 by the Central Excise authorities and they found 1869 'orex' wrist watches. The market value of the same was Rs. 1,62,830/-During the course of the search and subsequent investigation, they trraced the respondent in this revision petition and found out that he was the driver who brought the said lorry from Hyderabad to Madras. A confessional statement Was recorded from the said driver who had taken a room at Woodlands Hotel, Royapettah. This confessional statement was taken on 22.10.1971 wherein the present respondent had admitted of having transported these 1869 'orex' wrist' watches from Bombay for the purpo...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by Its Regional Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ6
S. Mohan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises an interesting question as to the liability of the respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, viz., the Bharat Pulverising Mills (P.) Ltd., No. 1074, T.H. Road, Madras-19, to make necessary contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By letter, dated 19th March, 1974, the appellant called upon the respondent to make the contributions under the Act in respect of attendance bonus, incentive payments, payments to contractors and certain allowances, and petty cash payments of a casual nature. The respondent objected to the demand. Thereafter, the Revenue Recovery Act was set in motion, and the contributions due on the above accounts were sought to be recovered. This necessitated the respondent to file a petition under Section 75 (1) of the Act, for a declaration that the payments like attendance bonus, incentive payments, payment to contractors for contract work done and casual pa...
Tag this Judgment!Thiagaraja Sendar Vs. Sri Pasupatheswararswami Devasthanam Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ437
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal raises a point about the application of the provisions of Section 51(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, (Tamil Nadu Act LVII of 1961). The appellant Thiagaraja Sendar obtained a lease of a tope in Govindakudi village which belongs to Sri Pasupatheswararswami Devasthanam, Avur. The lease comprised two items, a punja land bearing R.S. No. 635 and a coconut tope bearing R.S. No. 612/3. We are concerned in this second appeal only with one item viz., the tope. A lease deed was executed by the appellant in favour of the Devasthanam on 2nd December, 1964. It was also signed by the then Executive Officer of the Devasthanam. Under the lease deed, the appellant had to pay Rs. 100 per year as rent for the coconut tope. The lease deed also provided that the appellant could utilise the inter-space in the tope for punja cultivation. The lease was for a period of three years from 1374 to 1376...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramachandran Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ122Mad
1. An interesting question arises in this writ petition as to the power of the management to deduct wages for the absence of the employee during working hours from his seat. As to how this question arise would be evident from the following facts:2. The petitioner was working as a shroff/clerk in the respondent-Bank's (Indian Bank) main branch at Madurai and he was drawing a total salary of Rs. 1,380 per mensem. He is also the organising secretary of the Indian Bank Employees' Union which is claimed to be the major union. The Bank admittedly is a nationalised Bank. To celebrate the 7th anniversary of the Bank Nationalisation, which fell on the 19th of July, 1976, a function was organised to be held on the 19th July, 1976 at 6.30 p.m. A communication was addressed to all the members of the staff on that day stating that the meeting convened at 6.30 p.m. stood postponed to a later date on 28-7-1976 the following notice was put up:1. The Bank regrets to note that in the month of July, 1976...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Esic Vs. M.M. Rubber Co. (P) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ81Mad
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment in E.I.O.P. No. 14 of 1974, dated 26.11.1975 of the Employees' State Insurance Court, Madras. The judgment came to be delivered on a petition under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, praying for a declaration that the production bonus paid to the employees in accordance with the provisions of a settlement dated 13.4.1970, was not wages as defined under Section 2(22) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The respondent is a factory in Madras where, foam rubber articles are manufactured with the help of 150 workmen. The employees are insured under Section 38 of the Act. Contributions as contemplated by the provisions of the Act were recovered from the wages of all the insured persons and the amount so recovered along with the employer's contribution was remitted to the Corporation by the respondent. On 13.4.1970, there was a memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Unde...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Basappa Vs. Jumnadoss Also Known as Jumnadoss Manickchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ317
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. On two grounds, firstly that there was wilful default and secondly that there was subletting without authority, the petitioner, as landlord filed an application against the principal tenant impleading also the alleged sub-tenant as a party. By the time the application for eviction came up for hearing, it is the common case that the alleged subtenant vacated. The principal tenant took up the position that there was no sub-leasing at all without authority and he also denied that there was ever a wilful default. On the other hand, he pleaded that it was customary for the landlord to receive the rent once in two months and that such rents were sent by money order. The rents for the months of November and December, 1973 and January, 1974, which are subject-matters of the petition in question, were sent by money order in February, 1974 and received by the petitioner landlord on 9th February, 1974. In those circumstances, the principal tenant pleaded that there...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »