Chennai Court January 1985 Judgments
Somu Alias Somasundaram and ors. Vs. the State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1309
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The revision petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnad in Cr. R.C. No. 48 of 1983 setting aside the order of dismissal under Section 203 Crl. P.C. and remanding the matter to the trial Court for enquiry. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that the learned Sessions Judge who enquired into the revision case did not issue any notice of that petition and therefore, the order was passed in their absence and without giving them an opportunity. This is the essence of the contention in this petition.2. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides. It is common ground that the criminal complaint preferred by the second respondent was dismissed by the trial Court under Section 203 Cr. P.C. .In other words, till the process is issued by the trial court, the petitioners do not get the status of the accused. Consequently, they have no right of audience before the revisional authority. The proviso under Section 398 Cr. P...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Vs. Jothi Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ89
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The tenant, against whom the Appellate Authority has passed an order for eviction, on the application, of the landlady, the respondent herein, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the petitioner herein.2. The respondent is the owner of the premises bearing No. 14, Old Slaughter House Street, Choolai, Madras-600 007, and the petitioner herein is a tenant therein on a monthly rent of Rs. 30, the tenancy being reckoned according to the English calendar month. According to the case of the respondent, she is living in a rented premises and bona fide requires the house in the occupation of the petitioner for her own use and occupation. It was the further case of the respondent that three other tenants, who were in occupation of different portions of the premises, had already vacated realising the bona fides of the requirement of...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkataswami Naidu Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ277
ORDERV. Ratnam, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2017 of 1983, District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. In the respondent-company, with which the petitioner appears to have been associated since its inception, he holds two shares. Prior to 29.9.1983, the petitioner was one of its Directors. The Twenty-fifth Annual General Meeting of the respondent-company was scheduled to be held on 29.9.1983 at 11.30 a.m. Item 2 in the agenda for that meeting related to the appointment of a Director in the place of the petitioner, who retired by rotation and was eligible to offer himself for re-appointment. The annual report of the company and the notice of the Twenty-fifth Annual General Meeting were sent to all the shareholders of the company well in advance. While matters stood thus, on 28.9.1983, one P.J. Joseph, who held two shares in the respondent-company instituted S.C. Suit No. 5658 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, against the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)52CTR(Mad)240; [1986]157ITR816(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner could not have considered the order of the Income-tax Officer to be prejudicial to the Revenue inasmuch as the finding of the Income-tax Officer was in confirmity with the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 on identical issues even though not accepted by the Department and which decision was available to the Income-tax Officer before he completed the assessment 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was right, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that only 1/7th of the share income from M/s. Southern Mercantile Corporation was includible in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee was a partner in a firm called ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasu General Traders Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC358(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The subject-matter of dispute in this tax case is a turnover of Rs. 54,000 in respect of which the assessee, petitioner herein, claimed exemption as second sale of handmade matches. The assessing authority refused exemption on the ground that since the sale by the manufacturer alone had been exempted specifically by a Government Order, the sale by the assessee should be taken as the first taxable sale inside the State and therefore the turnover in question cannot be exempted. The said view of the assessing authority was not accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal, who held that the fact that the sale by the manufacturer, of handmade matches from whom the assessee had effected purchases had been exempted will not make the assessee's sale as the first sale, and that in view of the fact that there has been an earlier sale inside the State by the manufacturer to the assessee, the assessee's sale will not be the first sale in the State. The said order of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›