Chennai Court February 1978 Judgments
Rajarathnam Vs. Anantha Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1978
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1856
ORDERPaul, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cri. P. C., for directing the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Porto Novo to treat the case C. C. No. 2421 of 1976 as a Preliminary Register Case.2. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Porto Novo against the respondents in which complaint he has alleged as follows : - On 26-7-1976 at about 7-15 a.m. the complainant and his brother Vadivelu were attacked by the third accused and his men with koduwal and with sticks etc. and injuries were caused to the complainant and his brother; whereupon the complainant went and reported the matter to the police who thereupon sent him and his brother to the hospital where they were treated till 6-8-1976 and on 8-8-1976 when the complainant was going to his doctor as he was having headache and was passing by the house of the third accused all the accused were standing in the front of the house and on seeing him accused 3, 5 and 6 dragged h...
Tag this Judgment!H.L. Nantha Vs. T.C. Ramalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad269; (1978)1MLJ344
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 21-7-1977 in E. A. No. 128 of 1976 in O. S. No. 20 of 1974. Admittedly certain suits instituted by the petitioner against the respondent on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tenkasi are pending. Equally admittedly the respondent had obtained a decree against the petitioner in O. S. No. 20 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court of Tirunelveli. It is not again disputed that the decree in O. S. No. 20 of 1974 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, had been transferred for execution to the court of the District Munsif, Tenkasi. The consequence is that before the District Munsif, Tenkasi, are pending the suits filed by the petitioners against the respondent herein and the execution proceedings in O. S. No. 20 of 1974. It is against the background of these facts, the petitioner filed E. A. No. 128 of 1976 under Order 21 Rule 29 C. P. C. for stay of execution proceedings in O....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Doraisami Naidu and Sons and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR896(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the revenue :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there were no accumulated profits of the company as on April 1, 1960 and no amount could be brought to tax under the provisions of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 '2. It is admitted that the loan was given to the HUFs, who are shown as respondents in this tax case. The shareholders were the respective kartas of these HUFs. The Supreme Court in the decision CIT v. C. P. Sarathy Mudaliar : [1972]83ITR170(SC) has held that in such a case, the HUF cannot be treated as a shareholder and the individual alone is the shareholder. Under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, unless the advance of the loan is to a shareholder, the provisions of the section will not apply. Since the HUF is not a shareholder, clearly Section 2(6A)(e) is not applicable. the latter portion of...
Tag this Judgment!V. Muthukrishnan (Deceased) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR77(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tax payable under the Income-tax Act, on the amount disclosed under Section 68 of the Finance Act of 1965, is deductible in computing the net wealth for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66? '2. The facts leading to the reference are as follows:In pursuance of the Finance Act of 1965, the assessee made a declaration disclosing voluntarily an income of Rs. 3 lakhs derived by him prior to the assessment year 1960-61, and offering the same for tax. This voluntary disclosure was accepted by the revenue and the assessee paid tax at 60% amounting to Rs. 1,80,000 thereon. He had already filed wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66. After the voluntary disclosure, the WTO issued notice to the assessee calling upon him to file revised returns. In the revised returns, th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan Nair Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ40Mad
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Traffic Inspector in the Tamil Nadu State Trans. port Department, the second respondent herein. On the formation of Pallava Trans-port Corporation by G.O. Ms. No. 86 dated 8-11-1971, the petitioner on 1-1-1972 was deputed to serve the said Corporation. Prom that day onwards the petitioner has been working in the said Corporation on deputation raceiving the same emoluments and enjoying the same service conditions and privileges as obtained in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Department. The persons like the petitioner who were on deputation with the Pallavan Transport Department were asked to exercise their option to be retained in the service of the Pallavan Transport Corporation. Though some of the persons like the petitioner exercised their option for retention in the Pallavan Transport Corporation, the petitioner did not exercise the option. As a result the petitioner continued to be an employee of the State Transport Depa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagavathi Vilas Cigar Co. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ172Mad
Mohan, J.1. The short question that arises for any determination in this case is whether the workmen-respondents are entitled to encash the leave which they were unable to take in the following circumstances.2. On 1st July, 1968, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, came into force. By a notification issued under Section 26 of that Act on 16th September, 1968, the provisions of Payment of Wages Act became applicable to the workers under this Act. On 8th September, 1972, a Division Bench of this Court struck down Sections 26 and 27 of the Act, as ultra vires. The correctness of this judgment was canvassed before the Supreme Court when appeals were preferred. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held both the sections as intra vires reversing the judgment of this Court as seen from the decision reported in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. Union of India : (1974)ILLJ367SC . Thereupon the workmen contesting respondents preferred applications under Section 33C(2)...
Tag this Judgment!The Spl. Tahsildar (R.W.L.A.) Srivilliputtur Vs. Sri Pethavanallur May ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad406
1. This appeal by the State is against the judgment of the principal Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. As to the reason why this appeal was in the shelf of the High Court for nearly one decade cannot be explained. It is however resurrected and brought before us, but with scanty record and with no sufficient typed papers for a Division Bench, yet with tie assistance of counsel, we could gather the necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal.2. An extent of 2.18 acres of agricultural land in S. No. 289-1-B in Rajapalayam village was acquired along with some more extent of land for the public purpose of providing house sites for Katta Naickers. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 11-11-1964. A year later, a portion of the above notified land was withdrawn from acquisition by the Government issuing a notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This withdrawal became necessary as the acquiring authorities were of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brakes India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR820(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The following four questions are referred to us in respect of the two assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 :For the assessment year 1964-65 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that indirect expenses incurred before commencement of production could be added to the cost of assets for granting depreciation allowance as also for the purposes of allowing development rebate for the assessment year, 1964-65 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business of the assessee was not set up before December 31, 1963, and, consequently, no portion of the amount of Rs. 2,77,159 claimed as a revenue loss was admissible in computing the total income for the assessment year 1964-65 ?' For the assessment year 1965-66: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that indirect expenses incurred before the...
Tag this Judgment!Whiteway Dresses Vs. Addl. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ345Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a partnership concern engaged in the manufacture and sale of readymade garments at No. 9, Memorial Hall Street, Madras-3. The second respondent herein along with 7 others filed Claim Petition No. 15 of 1971 on the file of the Labour Court, first respondent herein, under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming in all a sum of Rs. 4,448 as and for holidays and leave wages for a period of six years ending 1970. We are not concerned with the claim put forward by the other claimants in this writ petition. We are concerned in this case only with the claim put forward by the second respondent.2. The claim was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds : (1) that the second respondent is not a ' person employed ' as denned in Section 2(12) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act'); (2) that the second respondent had no manner of right for wages for weekly closing days and for the national ...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Tahsildar (H.W.L.A.) Vs. Sri Pethavanallur Mayuranathasami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ17
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal by the State is against the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The reason why this appeal was in the shelf of the High Court for nearly one decade cannot be explained. It is however, resurrected and brought before us, but with scanty record and with no sufficient typed papers for a Division Bench; yet with the assistance of counsel, we could gather the facts for the disposal of this appeal.2. An extent of 2.18 acres of agricultural land in S. No. 289/1-B in Rajapalayam village was acquired along with some more extent of land for the public purpose of providing house sites for Katta Naickers. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 11th November, 1964. An year later, a portion of the above notified land was withdrawn from acquisition by the Government issuing a notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. This withdrawal became necessary as the acquiring authori...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »