Chennai Court June 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.
S. Kamatchi Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Department
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ101Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., dismissing W.P. No. 574 of 1977 filed by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7th February, 1975 of the Joint Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. 2. The said order, dated 7th February, 1975 of the Joint Director came to be passed in the following circumstances : The appellant was originally working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department. Thereafter, his services have been lent to the Pallavan Transport Corporation, as the appellant exercised his option in April, 1976, to serve under the said Corporation, while serving the Transport Department. On 22nd August, 1970 at about 6.30 a.m. the bus driven by the appellant in route No. 32, met with an accident with five cyclists as a result of which two of the cyclists died on the spot and several others injured and the bus was also considerably damaged. There was a departmental investigation in relation to ...
Assistant Collector of Central Excise and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahab and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT28(Mad)
1. Both the appeals have been filed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore and Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras-1 for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2) Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The main question involved in both the appeals is about the maintainability of the appeals. My attention was drawn to the decision of a Bench of this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Preventive) Madras v. V. Krishnamurthy (1) wherein Natarajan, J. and Ratnavel Pandian, J. have held that an appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Section 377(2). Crl.P.C. through his counsel, on the ground of inadequacy of sentence awarded, is not competent, and is liable to be dismissed for that reason. In view of the Bench judgment, these two appeals have to be dismissed on the ground that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is not competent to file the appeals for enhancement of sentence under Section 377(2), Crl.P. C. Hence dismissed. ...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay and ors. Vs. Kalavathi B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad154
Ramanujam, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of V. Ramaswami J. allowing W. P. No. 2927 of 1977 (reported in : AIR1980Mad316 ) filed by the respondent, and it involves the interpretation of regulation 9(4) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulation 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Regulation.2. The respondent herein was appointed as an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, by an order, dated 7-9-1962 with effect from 20-8-1962. Under the terms of the appointment she has to do a minimum amount of business of Re. 1 lakh on the life of 12 different persons in a calendar year. On the ground that she had not completed a minimum amount of business as required, she was informed by a letter dated 11-2-1977 that her services stood terminated under Regulation 13(l). The respondent therefore filed W. P. No. 2927 of 1977 seeking to quash the said communication dated 11-2-1977 mainly on two grounds viz. (1) according to the terms of the contrac...
Entertaining Enterprises, Madras and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad278
Ramanujam, J. 1. Since the writ appeals arise out of the interim orders passed in the interlocutory applications filed in the writ petitions, they need not be dealt with separately, as we are disposing of the writ petitions themselves. Since the facts and circumstances which gave rise to the filing of the writ petitions are substantially the same, it is not necessary to deal with the facts in each of the writ petitions and it will suffice to, deal with the facts in Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1984. The first petitioner in that case is one Entertaining Enterprises carrying on the business of running a video cassette library in Door No. 310, Mount Road, Madras-600 018. The object of the petitioners' business is-to make avail-, able on a fixed hire, video cassettes to its members to enable the members to view these cassettes in the Privacy of their homes, through a video cassette player attached to a television unit. The first petitioner has with him pre-recorded cassettes which he hires ou...
S. Vijayalakshmi and ors. Vs. M.G. Ganesa Iyer (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ299
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this appeal the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 51 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. Defendants 1 to 9 in the suit have been arrayed as respondents in this appeal. The 1st respondent died and respondents 2 to 7 have been recorded as his legal representatives. The 1st defendant was the father and defendants 2 to 4 are the sons and defendants 5 to 7 are the daughters. There was another son by name Sivasankaran and he died intestate on 10-8-1970. The 1st plaintiff is his widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are his daughters. That there was a joint family constituted of the first defendant, defendants 2 to 4 and the deceased Sivasankaran, was not in dispute. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy raised in this appeal as well as the cross-objections filed by the fourth respondent-the fourth defendant in the suit, it is not necessary to delineate and deal with all the aspects of the case.2. The suit by the plaint...
S. Sirumani C. Kanniah Naidu Vs. Pandian Roadways Corporation Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ340
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioners had not produced any certificate regarding their date of birth. Consequently, the registers refer to the year of their birth, namely, 1926. Having regard to that entry, the possibility of the petitioners having been born at any time from 1st January, 1926 cannot be ruled out. Therefore, taking a via media view in the matter, the respondent-Authority has fixed the age of superannuation of the petitioners as 30th June, 1984. The petitioners want to question the validity of this order and their contention is that the authority should have fixed the date of birth as 31st September, 1926, viz., the last date of the year and continue them in service till 31st December, 1984. There is hardly any basis on which such a contention can be raised. Be that as it may, there is no scope for the petitioners to contend that there has been a variation in the service conditions, because the year of birth has not been changed. Even though it was open to the responde...
S.V. Kamaladevi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by the Joint Secy., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ498
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is seeking in this writ petition a certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 6-4-1979 in G.O. Rt. No. 1386 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 1-8-1978 and to direct the respondents herein to release the north-east portion of the premises bearing door No.27/1, New Door No.37, Halls Road, Madras-8. The said premises, in respect of which, relief is sought for by the petitioner, is under Government tenancy on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. The petitioner, who is the owner of the said premises, and who is in occupation of the other portion of the same premises measuring about 651 sq.ft. applied for release of the north-east portion, which is under Government tenancy, on the ground that the same is required for her own occupation and that the portion already under her occupation is quite un-sufficient for accommodating herself and her family members. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv, Madras Vs. Sundaram Textile ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Mad)30; [1984]149ITR525(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion with reference to six assessment orders : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed under section 154 of the I.T. Act withdrawing the extra-shift allowance allowed is not sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture of cotton yarn. The assessee commenced production on February 1, 1963. Prior to this date for a period of about 14 months, the construction of the mill buildings and the installation of the machinery were being done. The expenditure on that account was incurred to the tune of about lakh and a half rupees. Since only a portion of the aforesaid amount represented direct expenses connected with the acquisition of certain fixed assets, the balance which could not be related to specific items, was allocated amo...
P. Jayappan Vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Mad)186; [1984]149ITR692(Mad)
1. This is a petition under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 133 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Madurai. The accused is the petitioner. 2. The first repondents/First Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, has launched the prosecution against the petitioner for offences under ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code and ss. 276(1) and 277 of the I.T. Act in C. C. No. 133 of 1983. The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Rathnam Food stuff Company, Tuticorin, filed an income-tax return dated January 20, 1978, for the accounting year ending April 20, 1977 (assessment year 1977-78), admitting an income of Rs. 13,380. The return was accompanied by profit and loss account, the trial balance, income-tax adjustment and copy of the capital account of the petitioner and the return was accepted. On August 20, 1981, and August 21, 1981, a search was conducted at the residence of the petitioner unde...
P. Sivagurunatha Pillai and anr. Vs. P. Mani Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad328
Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal directed against the dismissal of their suit in 0. S. 56 of 1972, Sub-Court, Kurnbakonam, under S. 92. C. P. C. praying for the relief of the framing of a scheme. The appellants came forward with the suit claiming that the suit properties are dedicate for public purposes and constitute a public trust. It was also further claimed in the plaint that there is a choultry at Pandanallur, called 'Kunnayee chatram' and one Kurmayee Ayeeyar wife of Vellaya Pillai constructed the choultry in or about 1840 and endowed some lands and subsequently one Chellappa and Chinnakulandai also endowed other properties to the choultry in all totalling to 37 acres and 10 cents in Pandanallur and Keelamandur villages. The patta in respect of these properties, according to the appellants, stood only in the name of the choultry and the respondents I to 3 herein did not have any rights. The properties so endowed to the choultry formed part of schedule...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »