Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1982)ILLJ413Mad
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issued of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from agreeing and/or approving, and/or ratifying the refund of the sum of Rs. 50,46,116-27 from the 'State Bank of Bikaner & Jaiyur Employees Provident Fund Account' to the second respondent, to be passed by a resolution at a meeting proposed to be held on 20-9-1976 or on any other date on the said alleged ground that the said amount was paid by mistake in violation of Regulation 12(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1969, framed under S. 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 38 of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts on the basis of which the above prayer has been projected, run as follows : The first petitioner is an association of the employees of the second respondent and it is being represented by its President, who is also an employee of the second respondent, working at its Madras Branch, and he and he is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1979Mad223
1. This second appeal has been posted before the Full Bench as the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Women's Right to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act (Act 26 of 1974) has been challenged by the appellants herein.2. The first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 169 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram seeking partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/4th share in the suit properties which consisted of two houses and certain agricultural lands. Her case was that her deceased husband Elumalai Reddiar, defendants 3 and 4, one Kannappa Reddiar, the husband of the second defendant and father of the first defendant and one Devendran were members of a Hindu Joint Family, that the plaintiff's husband died in the year 1947, that Devendran died in the year 1948 but that the family continues to be joint and therefore she is entitled to claim 1/4th share as the widow of the deceased co-parcener, Elumalai Reddiar.3. The suit was resiste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent relating to G.O.Ms.No.34, Housing and Urban Development Department [UD3(2)] dated 11.2.2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and quash the same.O R D E R1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition, challenging a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, learned Advocate General for the second respondent, Mr.M.C.Swamy learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1,4 and 5 and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent.3. The petitioners are residents of Jeevan Nagar, Thillai Ganga Nagar, Thiruvalluvar Nagar etc., which are located in the areas of Adambakkam, Alandur and Nanganallur. Facing the threat of dispossession from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1957Mad362; [1956]7STC691(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. Messrs. Mettur Industries Ltd., are the petitioners in this tax revision case. These proceedings arose out of the assessment for the year 1951-52. The Deputy Commercial tax Officer, ascertained the net assessable turnover of this assesses at Rs. 2,40,87,084-0-7. Objections were taken to this assessment by the assessee and an appeal was filed to the Commercial-tax Officer, but that appeal was dismissed. The objections were repeated in a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. 2. The objections taken, by the assessee fell under three heads; (1) a sum of Rs. 23,66,029 claimed to be the turnover arising from inter-State sales, the exemption claimed being under Article 286(2) of the Constitution; (2) Rs. 19,41,362 being the turnover on the purchase value of cotton purchased, by the mills from Messrs. Volkart Bros.; and (3) Rs. 2,24,517 being the sales-tax collections made by the appellant, to the inclusion of which in the assessable turnover objection was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in No.3682/DM/D1/2011, dated 24.11.2011 on the file of the first respondent, quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to issue fresh arms licence to the petitioner based upon his application dated 25.4.2011.ORDERQuestion raised :1. Whether a Lawyer who has to hold law books can be allowed to hold a Revolver for his protection and whether the licensing authority's power to refuse a licence in his favour was justified? are the questions to be decided in this writ petition.Present state of the Bar :2. Before proceeding with the issue on hand, it is necessary to recapitulate the role of a member of the Bar in the society as set out by the Supreme Court in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in (2011) 6 SCC 86. In paragraphs 17 and 20, the Supreme Court had observed as follows:"1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1965Mad14
Ramadchandra Iyer, C.J. (1) The India Coffee Board has filed these appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in a batch of suits dismissing its claim for recovery of damages from the respondents in the respective appeals, occasioned by their failure to pay the price of quantities of coffee sold to them. The respondents were the successful bidders at the pool auctions held on 7-10-1952 and 14-11-1952 by the Chief Coffee Marketing officer at Coimbatore. Under the terms of sale they should pay the price and take delivery of the goods within 14 days of the sale; that time could be extended by 3 days by the seller. But soon after the sale, and presumably by reason of the measures adopted by the appellant the price of coffee fell. None of the purchasers honoured their obligations. The coffee was then re-sold on 23-12-1952 and 5-2-1953 and the suits out of which these appeals arise were laid for recovery of the loss ascertained on such re-sale.(2) The substantial defenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
J U D G M E N T1. Heard.2.This appeal suit is filed under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of 1994 dated 09.12.1998 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Erode.3. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed two suits before the Trial Court. O.S.No.43 of 1994 was filed for specific performance for executing a sale deed in accordance with the agreement dated 05.11.1992, failing which, the Court itself must execute the sale deed. He filed the second suit in O.S.No.117 of 1995 for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant or their men or agents from in any manner causing interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.4. Pending the suit, on behalf of the second defendant, the Court appointed a guardian since the second defendant was a minor. Both suits were tried together and dismissed by a common judgment dated 09.12.1998. However, the present appeal is filed only against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad105; (1952)2MLJ598
Venkatarama Ayyar, J.1. These writs raise the question of the validity of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, IX of 1939, and of the Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939 framed thereunder hereinafter called the Rules. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21 of 1952 are doing business as tanners in Eluru. The course of business is that they purchase raw hides & skins & tan them in their own tannery. They hold a licence as tanners under the Act, Under Rule 15, they were submitting monthly returns of hides and skins purchased by them for the purpose of tanning, in form No. A-4 and an order was passed on 23-2-1951 on the basis of these returns determining the tax payable at Rs. 10,180-7-3.Payments amounting to Rs. 4,790-13-0 had been made by the petitioners towards the amount of the tax and for the balance Rs. 5,389-10-3 remaining payable, a demand was duly made by notice under Rule 15 (4). No appeal was taken against theorder of assessment and it has become final. Norwas any action institute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad368; (1953)1MLJ742
Chandra Reddi, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. In execution of a decree obtained on the foot of a mortgage the properties of the judgment-debtor were brought to sale on 1-4-1949 and the sale was confirmed on 3-5-1948. Subsequent to this confirmation, the Madras Legislature passed Act 23 of 1948 amending the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act in several respects. In view of these amendments, the appellant filed a petition E. A. No. 121 of 1949 in E.P. No. 131 of 1947 on 18-3-1949 to set aside the above-mentioned sale.The basis of this application is Section 23A. That section enacts:'Where in execution of any decree, any im-moveable property, in which any person entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief (Amendment) Act, 1948, had an interest, has been sold or foreclosed on or after 30-9-1947, and the sale had not been confirmed before the commencement of the said Act, (or 90 days, have not elapsed from the confirmation of the sale) or from the foreclosure, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1977]106ITR868(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee-respondent is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and is dealing in grocery articles and piece-goods. For the assessment years 1960-61,1961-62 and 1962-63, the Income-tax Officer treated the business income of the assessee as exempt from taxation. During the assessment year 1964-65 a successor Income-tax Officer took the view that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. In the view that the Income-tax Officer originally made a mistake in giving the exemption he reopened the assessments in respect of the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act'). In response to the notice issued, the society filed a return, but furnished the same particulars as was done in connection with the original assessment. Though the order of reassessment is not very clear, it may be taken that the Income-tax Officer considered that under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!