Chennai Court September 1978 Judgments
Executive Engineer, Construction Etc., Etc. Vs. K.J. Verghese, Etc., E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ423Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The first respondent herein was employed by the Southern Railway administration under the Executive Engineer (Construction) Erode as a casual labour from 16-9-1961. He was retrenched from service on 20-7-1974. At the time of retrenchment he was working as a lorry driver. On the ground that he had worked for more than five years continuously and was drawing a daily rate of Rs. 10-40 at the time of his retrenchment, he made an application claiming a sum of Rs. 2,028 as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The second respondent who is the controlling authority under the Act dismissed that application holding that the first respondent was not eligible for any gratuity under the said Act as the said Act is not applicable to persons working under the Railway Administration and that in any event the first respondent who has been paid retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot claim gratuity.2. Aggrieved ...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Construction, Southern Railway and ors. Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ457
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The first respondent herein was employed by the Southern Railway Administration under the Executive Engineer, (Construction), Erode, as a casual labourer from 16th September, 1961. He was retrenched from service on 20th July, 1974. At the time of retrenchment he was working as a lorry driver. On the ground that he had worked for more than 5 years continuously and was drawing a daily rate of Rs. 10.40 at the time of his retrenchment, he made an application claiming a sum of Rs. 2,028 as gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The second respondent who is the Controlling Authority under the Act dismissed the application holding that the first respondent was not eligible for any gratuity under the said Act as the said Act is not applicable to persona working under the railway administration and that in any event the first respondent who has been paid retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Rajasekharan Vs. R. Nookkandi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ495
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The appellant before us in objecting to the grant of a 'no objection certificate' to the first respondent for conducting a cinematographic exhibition after having obtained a 'no objection certificate under the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Act. The appellant, who is a competitor running a touring cinema objected to the grant of a 'no objection certificate' to the first-respondent, who is an independent touring cinema owner on the ground that that projected is likely to be situate within, the prohibited distance thus of lending the rule of distance provided for in Rule 14(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The second ground of attack is that the first respondent originally gave the survey number of the property ire which his touring cinema is to be situate as one number, but later on, it transpires that on a sub-division a different survey number was given to the site on which the cinema is to be located and that, therefore, there i...
Tag this Judgment!Bheru Industries Vs. the Government of India, Represented by the Joint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS140D
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.C. Rajappa, Advocate for the Petitioner the Court made the followingOrder: 2. The petitioner was issued import licence for importing cellulose nitrite films inSI. No. 101/D/V ITC Policy, Vol I. During the period from 30-4-1973 to 27-11-1974, they imported certain consignments of cellulose nitrite films and duty was levied under item 82(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff at the rate of 100% plus 20% with an additional duty at the rate of 40%. The petitioner paid the duty, cleared the goods and then filed a petition for refund of duties contending that the goods should have been assessed to duty at the rate of 60% plus 15% ad valorem as per the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No. 65 Customs dated 30 4 1973. It was alternatively contended that item No. 82(3) of the India...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramiah Nadar Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS103D; 1979(4)ELT136(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the courts below, has preferred this second appeal in so far as he could not get a declaration or injunction that the Central Excise Authority had wrongly levied duty on him and further that he was not liable for any duty. He is a tobacco merchant dealing in unmanufactured tobacco for which he holds licence issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, briefly referred to herein as the Act. The said licence does not prohibit him in dealing with manufactured products like tobacco packets, pani tobacco etc. He was also dealing in manufactured tobacco viz. pani tobacco, etc. for which no licence or accounts is required under the law of Central Excise that he is not a manufacturer of such pani tobacco. On or about 15th July, 1966, the Central Excise authorities inspected his premises and cheeked the bill books maintained by him for the sale of pani tobacco for the period from 5th August, 1964 to 9th July, 1966. It was found, 10642 kgs. ...
Tag this Judgment!A.N.N.K. Mohamed Kasim and ors. Vs. Alagan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ269
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Special Tribunal, Inam Abolition, Ramanathapuram at Sivaganga dated 30th May, 1974, made in R.A. No. 172 of 1971. The appellants herein claimed ryotwari patta under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Act (XXVI of 1963) on the basis that the inam in question was a new inam estate. The Assistant Settlement Officer III (Enquiries), Karaikudi, by his order dated 29th May, 1970, held that the lands involved were private lands. Still he did not grant ryotwari patta to the appellants on the ground that they had not proved cultivation and possession for the requisite period as provided for under Section 9 of the Act with regard to the new inam estate. On the other hand he held that the respondents would be entitled to ryotwari patta under Section 11 of the Act, as the appellants were not entitled to get patta under Section 9 of the Act. Against this order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Gounder Vs. Ramaswamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad189; (1979)1MLJ343
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The unsuccessful second defendant in O.S. No. 112 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Udumalpat. who could not get relief in this Court in Appeal No. 526 of 1973, is the appellant. The plaintiff entered into a agreement of sale with the defendants under Ex. B-2. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance to the defendants by the plaintiff. Inter alia there were other terms under which the plaintiff should purchase the property from the defendants. On the foot that the defendants committed breach of contract, the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 10,000 together with interest from the date of payment. This was resisted by the defendants on the ground that they did not commit breach and that under the terms of the agreement the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was forfeitable. The defence was:'If the defendants commit default the plaintiff's only remedy was to file a suit for specific performance. In other words. he is not entitled to refu...
Tag this Judgment!G. Jagadesh Chandran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ4
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition relates to assessment proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Urban Land Tax Act.2. The second respondent fixed the value of the Urban properties of the petitioner at Rs. 31,200 per ground for the land comprised in T.S. Nos. 1015 and 1016 and at Rs. 27,500 per ground for the land situate in T.S. No. 1017 of Ward I, Block 17, Coimbatore village, Coimbatore taluk. Yet another item, i.e., the land comprised in T.S. No. 59613 in Ward II, Block 25, of the same village was valued at Rs. 12,000 per ground. The petitioner appealed to the third respondent, which is the Statutory Appellate Authority, against the order of assessment. The third respondent allowed the appeal in part and fixed the market value for T.S. Nos. 1015 and 1016 at Rs. 26,500 per ground, for T.S. No. 1017 at Rs. 20,500 per ground and for T.S. No. 59613 at Rs. 9,600 per ground.3. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders of the respondents on the ground that...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Nadar Vs. the Corporation of Madurai by Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1978
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ140
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. One Shanmugha Nadar, a citizen of Madurai City, owned 1-46 cents of vacant land which he laid out into plots for being sold as house sites, in the lay-out plan, an extent of 1-10 cents was covered by the house sites; the balance of 36 cents represented the space left for road purpose.2. The Madurai City Municipal Corporation functioning under the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971(Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1971) by its Commissioner levied property tax on the capital value of Shanmugha Nadar's land of the aggregate extent of 1-46 cents. The basis of the tax, according to the assessments made by the Commissioner, was the market value of the land which was determined at the Rs. 1,000 per cent. On this basis, property tax was levied for two half years in 1970-71 and one half year in 1971-'72. Before the assessing authority, Shanmugha Nadar represented that the basis of the assessment was wrong and the real value of the property could not exceed Rs. 400. This ...
Tag this Judgment!Christinamary Stella Vs. Vijay Siddharaj and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad100
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This case comes up before us for confirmation of the order passed by the District Judge, Pudukottai, who allowed the petition filed by the first wife and dissolved the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent contracted a second marriage with the second respondent after the solemnisation of the first marriage and that the first respondent deserted the petitioner and is permanently living with the second respondent and had a child through her also. The facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the first respondent married the petitioner on 19-2-1973 in the Sacred Heart Church, Pudukottai. and the marriage solemnisation certificate though not filed in the trial court, has been filed in this court which we marked as Ex. C. 1. having thus married the petitioner on 19-2-1973, it appears that the first respondent married again, 20 days thereafter on 11-3-1973, the second respondent and was not frequenting ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »