Chennai Court August 1984 Judgments
S. Sundaram, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: [1992]197ITR696(Mad)
S.A. Kader, J.1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-in-charge, Tiruchi, forwarding the complaint given by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police for investigation, to recall the complaint and direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed with it in accordance with law. The complainant is the petitioner. 2. The complainant is the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment), Tiruchirappalli. He has filed a criminal prosecution against one M/s. T. Palaniappan and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchi, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The offences alleged against the accused are in respect of the return of income filed by them which was found to be false. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kanni R. Krishna Iyer Vs. K.L. Krishnamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad346
ORDER1. In the above T. O. S. a preliminary objection is raised regarding the question of Court fees. The petitioner had filed O. P. No. 85 of 1982 seeking to prove the will of one late K. E. Krishnaswamy alias Krishnamachari, in Solemn form and for the issue of Letters of Administration in respect of the will, with the registration copy of the will annexed. In that O. P. the said petitioner had impleaded all the interested parties who are likely to dispute the will and prayed for reliefs. Since some of the respondents disputed the will the said O. P. was converted into T. O. S. No. 10 of 1982, in which the contesting defendants have raised the issue regarding the Court fees, which is agreed to be decided as the preliminary issue. On the O. P. No. 85 of 1982 a Court fee of Rs. 5/- had been paid under Sch. 11, Art. 11 (k)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The contention of the contesting defendants is that one-half the scale of fees prescribed in Art. 1 of S...
Tag this Judgment!R. Vadivelu Vs. Kamalanathan Alias Chinnapaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ41
G. Maheswaran, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. It would be convenient to narrate the facts with reference to the Commissioner's plan filed in this case. PQRS is the house belonging to the plaintiff. ADJK is the house of the defendant. The plaintiff already owns 3 feet west of the western wall PS. He claimed title to the property ABCD by virtue of a purchase under Ex.A-1 in his favour by one Ammani Atmmal. The east-west extent given in Ex.A-1 and the prior document to Ex.A-1, is nine yards. What is now claimed is 31' 7'. The dispute between the parties arose when the foundation was laid in the portion marked as TV. (This is the mark given by the Appellate Judge and is not given by the Commissioner). The Trial Court found that the plaintiff has got title to the space TBCV and marked to the west of it. The defendant claimed 5 feet east of eastern wall AD. The decree of the trial Court is unintelligible. What the trial Court purported to decree was the declaration of title for the por...
Tag this Judgment!Arul theatre and ors. Vs. Regional Director Employees State Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ68Mad
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 371 of 1983 in Pro. No. 15 of 1981, on his file. The main proceeding was initiated by one Arul Theatre represented by one Muthu for a declaration that Arul Theatre is not an establishment coming within the purview of the notification in G.O. Ms. No. 1088, dated 22nd January, 1976. During the pendency of that proceeding, Muthu died on 28th December, 1981. The petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased Muthu filed I.A. No. 371 of 1983 on 15th February, 1983, under Order XXII, Rule 3, and S. 151, C.P.C. praying that they should be impleaded as the legal representatives of deceased Muthu in the proceedings. That application was opposed by the respondent herein on the ground that not even the date of death of Muthu had been disclosed and that having regard to his death which took place on 28th December, 1981, the application to bring on record the legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Arul theatre Rep., by Lakshmiammal and ors. Vs. the Regional Director ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ121
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A.No. 371/83 in Pro.No. 15/81 on his file. The main proceeding was initiated by one Arul Theatre represented by one Muthu for a declaration that Arul Theatre is not an establishment coming within the purview of the notification in G.O.Ms.No. 1088, dt. 22.1.1976. During the pendency of that proceeding, Muthu died on 28.12.1981. The petitioners, who are the wife and children of the deceased Muthu, filed I.A.No. 371 of 1983 on 15.2.1983 under Order XXII, Rule 3, and Section 151, C.P.C. praying that they should be impleaded as the legal representatives of deceased Muthu in the proceeding. That application was opposed by the respondent herein on the ground that not even the date of death of Muthu had been disclosed and that having regard to his death which took place on 28.12.1981, the application to bring on record the legal representatives filed on 16.2.1983 was ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gnanavelan and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad69
1. The above writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Raffles are conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu, first respondent in Writ petition No. 1384 of 1984 and the second respondent in writ petition No. 3635 of 1984. The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Raffles, second respondent in writ petition No. 1384 of 1984 and the First Respondent in writ petition No. 3635 of 1984 and the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffles (third respondent in Writ petition No. 1384 of 1984) are in charge of the conduct of Raffles. They held a bumper draw with an amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs) for the first prize. The Original date of draw was scheduled to be 3-4-1977 but it was postponed and the draw was held on 25-5-1977 and the ticket bearing No. AB275522 was declared to be entitled to the bumper prize of Rs. 15 lakhs.3. On 27-5-1977 the Director of Raffles received a letter from one Pappa stating that she was the purchaser of the prize winning ticket but that she lo...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Kuddoos Vs. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Madras and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad49
1. The Chief Justice (W.A. 759 of 1984) : - The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise directing re auction of arrack shop No. 4, in Hasthampatti village, Salem Taluk, which having been dismissed by the learned single Judge he has filed this appeal.2. Briefly the facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that the auction of arrack shop No. 4 referred to above was notified in the Government Gazette as well as in the newspapers as far back as on 28-4-1984 and 12-5-1984, respectively. The auction took place on 26-5-1984, the appellant being the successful bidder for Rs. 50,111/per month. This auction in favour of the appellant was confirmed by the Collector of Salem on 30-5-1984. By his order, he directed that the appellant should remit the balance advance rental (equivalent to 21/2 times the monthly rentals) as required under-R. 16 of the Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rul...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gnanaselvan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by Its Secy. Dept. o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ486
David Annoussamy, J.1. The above writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Raffles, are conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu, first respondent in Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1984 and the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 3635 of 1984. The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Raffles, second respondent in Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1984 and the first respondent in Writ Petition No. 3635 of 1984 and the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffles (third respondent in Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1984) are in charge of the conduct of raffles. They held a bumper draw with an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen lakhs) for the first prize. The original date of draw was scheduled to be 3-4-1977, but it was postponed and the draw was held on 25-5-1977 and the ticket bearing No. AB. 275522 was declared to be entitled to the bumper prize of Rs. 15 lakhs.3. On 27-5-1977, the Director of Raffles received a letter from one Pappa stating that she was the purchaser of the prize winning...
Tag this Judgment!Vembu Ammal Vs. Swaminathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ105
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, is the revision-petitioner herein. Check-slip No. 850/XXII/S was filed in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 before the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.2. A reference by the Court-fee Examiner in O.S. No. 83 of 1982 was submitted to the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, regarding the court-fee paid and the classification of the relief for partition as one under Section 37(2) is wrong. It is stated in the reference that the suit was filed to obtain possession, damages and future mesne profits, and the suit is sought to be classified as one for partition, damages and future mesne profits. Item No. 1 in the suit properties was purchased by the plaintiff from the first defendant on 28.5.1974. The mother of the defendant instituted a suit for partition and the share of the defendant was declared as 5/8. The plaintiff was a party to the proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Lily Thomas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad240
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that S. 12-B of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act (XX of 1951), hereinafter referred to as the Act, is illegal and unconstitutional being ultra vires the State Legislature and on these grounds the petitioner further wants this court to strike down the same.2. The petitioner, who appeared in person, is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, Delhi. The question raised in this writ petition was argued on merits without adverting to the competency of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. The Act is apparently a post Constitutional statute. Mrs. Lily Thomas, the petitioner has no grievance with reference to the enacting of the Act and she would concede that the Act is perfectly valid having the sanction of Arts. 186 and 195 of the Constitution of India, read with Entry 38 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The above constitutional provisions stand extracted as follows:-'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »