C. Surendran Vs. T. Ravindran

C. Surendran vs T. Ravindran

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 29, 1995

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792024

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/792024
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: C. Shivappa, J.
Decided On: Mar 29, 1995
Case Number: Criminal Original Petn. No. 7118 of 1994 and Crml. Misc. Petns. Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 1994
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 276C(1), 277 and 278(B)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. Surendran

Advocate Deokinandan, Adv.

Respondent

T. Ravindran

Advocate K.M.L. Majele, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 276C(1), 277 and 278(B)
Reported In: (1996)133CTR(Mad)9; [1996]217ITR368(Mad)

Excerpt

- shivappa, j.1. the petitioner is seeking for quashing the proceedings initiated for offences under ss. 120b, 420 r/w s. 511, ipc, 1860, and under ss. 276c(1), 277 and 278b of the it act, 1961. the manner in which the offences have been committed are all matters of evidence. the petitioner has got a stage to urge all his contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. i see no ground to quash the proceedings. counsel for the petitioner is absent though it is 12.10 p. m. petitions, therefore, dismissed. 2. consequently, criminal misc. petitions nos. 5241 and 5242 of 1994 are also dismissed.

Full Judgment

Shivappa, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing the proceedings initiated for offences under ss. 120B, 420 r/w s. 511, IPC, 1860, and under ss. 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the IT Act, 1961. The manner in which the offences have been committed are all matters of evidence. The petitioner has got a stage to urge all his contentions before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. I see no ground to quash the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner is absent though it is 12.10 p. m. Petitions, therefore, dismissed.

2. Consequently, Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 1994 are also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1995 Same Parties C. Surendran vs T. Ravindran Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge C. Shivappa, J. Acts & Sections Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 276C(1), 277 and 278(B)

Direct Taxation