Chennai Court December 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State Vs. Varadarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1567
David Annoussamy, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of acquittal. The case of the prosecution was summarily as follows:The accused is a Head Clerk in the office of the District Health Office, Tirunelveli at Palayamkottai. P.W.1 who was a Health Assistant in the Shencottah Group in the same office was suspended by an order of the Health Officer for some grave negligence in the performance of his duty; while so, the Head Clerk offered to help him to come out of the difficulty provided he gave him Rs. 1000; P. W. 1 paid Rs. 200 as part of that amount and in the course of the payment in accordance with the trap arranged upon the information of P.E.1 the amount of Rs. 200 paid by P.W.1 was recovered from the accused. Thereupon, the accused was charged for an offence punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The trial Court by judgment dated 30th December, 1978, acquitt...
Gemini Metal Works Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC51; 1985(5)LC2457(Madras); 1985(22)ELT27(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the decision of Mohan, J., in W.P. No. 3554 of 1975 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent, in appeal subject to reduction of fine, which in turn confirmed, subject to reduction of fine, the original order confiscating the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposing a redemption fine Rs. 38,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The circumstances which led to the filing of the said writ petition by the appellant may briefly be noted. The appellant had been issued an actual users 'licence to import tin plates waste. The said licence was current upto 30-6-1970. On the basis of an order placed by the appellant with a foreign seller, goods had been shipped in August 1970 and they arrived in the Madras harbour in November 1970. Since the goods could not be cleared, unless there was a valid licence to...
Chinnamma and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad55
Ramanujam, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the decision of Mohan J. in W. P. Nos. 9511, 9512 and 9513 of 1982 sustaining the validity of the notification dated 4-8-1982, under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the consequential declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, so far as it relates to the lands belonging to the petitioner in each of the three writ petitions.2. In G. O. Ms. No. 976 Industries Department dated 15-7-1981, the Government issued orders for acquisition of 913.77 acres of land (890.53 dry + 23,24 wet), under ordinary provisions of the Act in old Gummudipoondi village and other villages in Gummudipundi taluk for setting up an industrial complex in Gummudipoondi in Chingleput district. The State Industries Promotion Corporation Ltd. Tamil Nadu, hereinafter called SIPCOT, stressed the need for the acquisition of the land under emergency clause by their letter No. 37/8 dated 19-8-1981, to the Government and the Government passed G.O. Ms. No. 6...
V.D. Swami and Co., Ltd. by Its Managing Director M. Balaji Vs. the Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ120
G. Ramanujam, J.1. In this Writ Appeal, the order of V. Ramaswami, J, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 3452 of 19 78 in limine has been challenged.2. The appellant herein entered into a contract with the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department for the supply of 10 Nos. of Chlorine Tonne Containers at the rate of Rs. 8,240 each F.O.R. Ernakulam Goods Shed. As per the terms of the contract, the appellant dispatched 10. Nos. of Chlorine Tonne Containers after due inspection by Lloyds Registet of Industrial Services along with their certificate to Ernakulam Goods Shed on 3rd December, 1973 and a bill dated 4th December, 1973 for a sum of Rs. 93,359.20 to the Executive Engineer, Public Health Central Stores, Cochin. As per the contract, 90 per cent of the total value Rs. 84,023.28 was paid to the appellant on presentation of the documents and the balance of 10 per cent was payable on a later day. However, the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, not only withhe...
K. Ramaprasad Vs. Record Officer and Special Tahsildar, No. 1, Tenancy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ212
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J. dated 10.1.1978 made in Writ Petition No. 4426 of 1977.2. The appellant herein is the landlord and he filed an application before the Record Officer for removal of the fourth respondent's name from the record of tenancy in respect of seventy cents of land in S.No. 34/4 and 12 cents of land in (sic).33/6 in the village of Keelamathikkattinam, Madurai South Taluk. The enquiry on the said petition was taken up by the Record Officer and in the said enquiry, the appellant herein contended that the fourth respondent herein was not a tenant at all either on waram basis or on Kuthagai basis, that he was engaged only as an agricultural labourer to watch and water the land in question for which he was paid four bags of paddy as wages and that therefore, the fourth respondent cannot be registered as a tenant under the provisions of the Record of Tenancy Act, 1969. As against this, the fourth respondent contended that he ...
The Madras Wines Vs. B. Abraham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ285
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 454 of 1975 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff decree-holder. The defendant admittedly was let into possession of the premises in question as a tenant. The tenancy was terminated and the plaintiff laid the suit for ejectment of the defendant. Apart from other contentions,, the defendant raised a plea that the suit for ejectment is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The plaintiff counteracted this defence of the defendant by stating that the building was completed only in March, 1970 and as per Section 30(i) of the Act, nothing in the Act shall apply to any building for a period of five years from the date on which the construction is completed and notified to the local authority concerned. The first Court countenanced this case of the plaintiff. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.K. Ulagammal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: [1987]166ITR210(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. We are not satisfied that any question of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently contend, relying on a decision of this court in CIT v. Seth Manicklal Fomra : [1975]99ITR470(Mad) , that the Appellate Assistant Commissioners no power to set aside oan order of the Income-tax officer partially and that therefore a question of law arises. Factually we do not find that there is any partial setting aside of the order of assessment. In paragraph 10 of his order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has specifically since, he had already deleted two items only and not been decided with reference to the third item relating to cash credit he has allowed the Income-tax officer, to reconsider. In form, however, he has set aside the entire over of the Income-tax Officer and remitted the matter. 2. The decision cited by the learned counsel is also not an authority for the position that while setting aside the entire order of the Inc...
S. Alphone Vs. District Supply Officer, Nagarcoil and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad20
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ramanujam. J. by which the learned Judge has held that the direction contained in the Order F.2. 77901/81, issued by the District Supply Officer Nagarcoil as the licensing authority, dt. 10-2-1981, was justified and that it was within the powers of the licensing authority to give the said direction which had the effect of reducing the quantum of rice which the appellant was entitled to possess and store.2. The State Government had promulgated an order called the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Order. Under Cl. 8 of the said Order, retail trade in paddy or rice could not be carried on unless a person registered himself as a retailer with the licensing authority. The licensing authority under the order was the District Supply Officer. Cl. 14 of this 1974 Order vested in the Government, the Commissioner and the Collector or the licensing authority power ...
S. Alphonse and ors. Vs. the District Supply Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ1
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., by which the learned Judge has held that the direction contained in the order F.2-77901/81 issued by the District Supply Officer, Nagercoil, as the licensing authority, dated 10.2.1981 was justified and that it was within the powers of the licensing authority to give the said direction which had the effect of reducing the quantum of rice which the appellant was entitled to possess and store.2. The State Government had promulgated an order called The Tamil Nadu Paddy/ Rice (Regulation and Trade) Order, 1974, hereinafter referred to as 1974 Order. Under Clause 8 of the said Order, retail trade in paddy or rice could not be carried on unless a person registered himself as a retailer with the licensing authority. The licensing authority under the Order was the District Supply Officer. Clause 14(a) of this 1974 Order vested in the Government, the Commissioner and the Collector or the licensing authority p...
Vinod Kumar Didwania Vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Iii, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1984
Reported in: [1986]159ITR91(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. The writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent, in assessment order PAN-47/005-PT-5341/81-82, dated October 10, 1984, and quash the same and direct the respondents to dispose of the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and render justice. 2. Pending the writ petition, the writ miscellaneous petitions were taken up for the stay of the operation of the said order. Though in an interlocutory proceeding detailed orders are not desirable as it is likely to affect the parties in the final disposal of the writ petition, I have heard very elaborate arguments from Mr. V. P. Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department. 3. I will briefly set out the following facts as stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department which according to her are borne out by records. But, Mr. V. P. Raman, learned counsel appearing ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »