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. Saleem Khan Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC146
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant was found guilty of contraventions of the provisions of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, in his order dated 13th May, 1980 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under each of the provisions was imposed. Though this finding was confirmed by the appellate authority, the penalty was reduced on both the counts from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 6,000. The case of the Enforcement Directorate was that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 76,500 on the account of his brother-in-law, who was residing in Colombo and distributed the amounts to certain persons in India in accordance with the directions of his brother-in-law at Colombo. Both the original as well as the appellate authority, in finding the appellant guilty, relied on the statement of the appellant dated 25th October, 1979, which he had later on retracted on 31st October, 1979.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that t...
S.M. Mohammed Ismail Vs. the Additional Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1984
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC64
Ratnam, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (Act 46 of 1973) against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 49 of 1979 dated 24thSeptember, 1980. On receipt of information that the;appellant was to receive a sum of Rs. 20,000 from a person resident outside India on his instructions, the office where the appellant was working was searched on 8th September, 1971 but that search proved futile. Thereafter, his residence at Room No. 6, Lala Compound (Upstairs), 206, North Masi Street, Madurai-1, was searched on the same day, which resulted in the seizure of certain incriminating documents. On his examination with reference to the documents so seized, the appellant gave a statement on 8th September, 1971 to the effect that he is an Indian citizen staying at the premises from which the incriminating documents were seized, that he was a native of Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram, that the aerograms seized we...
Salema Bibi Vs. Shaik Dovud
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad323
1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal at the instance of the mortgagee is directed against the order passed by the learned district Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in O. P.No. 65 of 1981, filed by the respondentherein under Ss. 9 and 17 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act No. 40 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and affirmed by the lower appellate court in C. M. A. No. 32 of 1982, holding that the mortgage debt in favour of the appellant stood discharged by the operation of the provisions of the Act and directing theappellant to return the original usufructuary mortgage deed and to deliver possession of the hypotheca to therespondent, The property in question bearing door No. 103. Mettu Street. Varaganeri, Tiruchirapalli, belonged to Zuleika Bibi, the mother of the respondent herein having been purchased by her on 7-2-1904. She had executed a mortgage in respect of this property in favour of Tiruchi City Co-operative Bank on 30-5-1970. Later. on 13-11-1970. Zuleika Bibi exec...
R. Gopala Pathar Vs. N. Jayalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad340
1. The first defendant in O. S. No.'42 of 1973, Sub-court, Kumbakonam, is the appellant in this Second Appeal which arises out of a suit for a declaration of title to the property and for a declaration with reference to certain amounts lying in court deposit instituted by one Natarajan Iyer, who figured as the plaintiff originally and whose legal representative's are respondents 1 to 7 in this second appeal. The 8th respondent. herein, who figured as the second defendant in the suit, claims to be a tenant in occupation of the disputed property. The property in dispute measures 10' east to west and 125 north to south in Big Street, Kumbakonam town. Originally, this property as well as a similar extent measuring in all 10 east to west and 259 north to south belonged to: one Visalakshi Ammal. One Kuthaperumal Vaidyar was a flourishing native doctor in Kumbakonam and he died in or about 1926. Through his first wife, he had a son Govindaswamy. Srinivasa was another son of Kuthaperumal throu...
Saleema Bibi Vs. Shaik Dovud
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ168
V. Ratnam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal at the instance of the mortgagee is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in O.P. No. 65 of 1981, filed by the respondent herein under Sections 9 and 17 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and affirmed by the lower appellate court in CM.A. No. 32 of 1982, holding that the mortgage debt in favour of the appellant stood discharged by the operation of the provisions of the Act and directing the appellant to return the original usufructuary mortgage deed and to deliver possession of the-hypotheca to the respondent. The property in question bearing door No. 103, Mettu Street, Varaganeri, Tiruchirapalli, belonged to Zuleika Bibi, the mother of the respondent herein, having been purchased by her on 7.2.1964. She had executed a mortgage in respect of this property in favour of Tiruchi City Co-operative Bank on 30.5.1970. Later, on 13.11.1970, Zuleika...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: [1985]151ITR9(Mad)
ORDERS. Natarajan, J. 1. It is true the main writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the warrant of authorisation issued by the first respondent in the writ petition for causing a search being made in the premises of the writ petitioner and to direct respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner taking further proceedings pursuant to the raid made by them on 25-6-1983. But on that score, it cannot be said that an order to vacate the interim injunction already granted will virtually give a quietus to the writ petition itself. On the basis of some information, the officers of the IT department deemed it necessary to search the premises of the writ petitioner and did conduct a search on 25-6-1983. According to the writ petitioner, no incriminating document or material nor unaccounted cash or jewels were seized and all that was seized was a paltry sum of Rs. 800 odd. On the ground that the unwarranted search had caused not only pain and anguish to h...
M. Sheik Ali and anr. Vs. State Bank of India Reference by Its Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ477
Ramanujam, J.1. These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the same proceedings. The appellants herein are the judgment-debtors in respect of a mortgage decree dated 19-9-1979 passed in O.S. No. 25 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil, for Rs. 87,858-58. The mortgaged properties were brought to sale at the instance of the decree-holder and the properties were sold in Court auction on 14-2-1980. Subsequent to the sale, the first defendant filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 C.P.C., for setting aside the sale with an application for condonation of the delay. The second defendant filed an application for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. . The Court below took the application, E.A. No. 604 of 1980, for excusing the delay in filing the application under Order 21, Rule 89 C.P.C., filed by the first defendant first, and dismissed the same by its order dated 1-7-1981, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to applications fi...
K.V. Kadiresan and Com., by Partner K.V. Kadiresan and ors. Vs. the St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ15
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. In these writ petitions, petitioners seek for a declaration that Rules 1-A, 3(b), 2, 3(iii) and 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are null, void and hence unenforceable against the petitioners. The relevant rules under challenge are Rules Nos. l-A (3)(b), 2, 3(iii), and 7(4). Though at the time of the filing of the writ petitions, these are the relevant rules, petitioners by misconception have referred to different rule numbers, as if they are the relevant rules. It was by G.O.Ms.No. 518, Agriculture, dated 23.2.1968, and as amended from time to time, Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules were made, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 (III of 1882) a pro-Constitution enactment. The said Act was enacted 'for the protection and management of forests' in the State of Tamil Nadu. Apart from this Act, Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, Tamil Na...
Ramakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)309
ORDER : S. Natarajan, J. - It is true the main writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the warrant of authorisation issued by the first respondent in the writ petition for causing a search being made in the premises of the writ petitioner and to direct respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner taking further proceedings pursuant to the raid made by them on 25-6-1983. But on that score, it cannot be said that an order to vacate the interim injunction already granted will virtually give a quietus to the writ petition itself. On the basis of some information, the officers of the IT department deemed it necessary to search the premises of the writ petitioner and did conduct a search on 25-6-1983. According to the writ petitioner, no incriminating document or material nor unaccounted cash or jewels were seized and all that was seized was a paltry sum of Rs. 800 odd. On the ground that the unwarranted search had caused not only pain and anguish to...
R. Eswara Iyer and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1984
Reported in: [1986]157ITR500(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These tax cases are filed by four brothers who are assessees under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act against the order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Board of Revenue, dated November 8, 1976, in relation to two assessment years. 2. For the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, the petitioners claimed that they were holding the lands as tenants-in-common. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer accepted the claim and treating them as tenants-in-common, held that as their holdings are within the exemption limit, no tax was leviable by orders dated July 15, 1971, and June 22, 1972. However, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax took the view that the petitioners have been wrongly assessed in the status of tenants-in-common and, therefore, initiated suo motu revisional proceedings under section 34 of the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, to set aside the said orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the two assessment...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »