Chennai Court August 1986 Judgments
John F. Fidele and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: 1994LC255(Madras); 1992(58)ELT498(Mad)
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing on Thursday the 31st day of July 1986 and this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof, and the order of this court dated 25-4-1986 and made in W.M.P. No. 5466 of 1986 and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R. Thiagarajan, for Mr. M. Dhamodharan, advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and Mr. P. Narasimhan, Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent in both the petitions, the court made the following Order :- The petitioner in both the W.M.Ps is the petitioner in the Writ Petition.When I admitted the Writ Petition, I passed the following order in W.M.P. No. 5466 of 1986 on 25-4-1986. 'In view of the similar orders passed in W.P. No. 8376 of 1982 [D. Narasingamurthy v. The Collector of Madras, Madras-1 and Another] and confirmed in W.A. No. 319 of 1983 [D. Narasingamurthy v. The Collector of Madras, Madras-1 and Another] there will be interim injunction on the peti...
Tag this Judgment!A. Khan Mohammed Vs. P. Narayanan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ102
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in both the petitions. He filed a petition for eviction of the respondents under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960)(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the premises which is a non-residential building is needed for the purpose of carrying on his own business. The property is bearing door No. 79, Thulasinga Naicken St, Pudupet, Madras 2. It is stated that there are about six shops each measuring 10 ft. x 6 ft. The four respondents in C.R.P. No. 616 of 1983 and the sole respondent in C.R.P. No. 617 of 1983 are in occupation of shops Nos. A, B, C, D, E, F, respectively, and it is stated in the petition that shop No. B is in the occupation of the petitioner's vendor. The property itself was purchased by the landlord on 3rd November, 1980 and immediately thereafter the petition was filed for eviction.2. Two interesting questions have been raised ...
Tag this Judgment!Paulus Alias Balan Vs. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC250; [1988]64CompCas343(Mad)
1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in MACP No.,9 of 1975 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumar. Ranking of parties will be as referred to as in the Tribunal. He was injured in an accident which occurRed at 7.30 a.m., on September 5,1972, at Edaicode on the Melpuram-Panichamood Road, when he was going on a bicycle from the north to the south on the eastern side of the road., At that time, the car bearing registration number TMC 5488 came from the opposite direction and dashed against him causing freievous injuries. he was an in-patient in the hospital from September 5,1972, to September 18, 197, and took treatment as an out-patient until JUly 5,1973. The first respondent was convicted by the criminal court under Sections 279 and 338, Indian penal Code. Due to the accident, the petitioner had sustained permanent disability including cerebral concussion and partial loss of hearing and sight, and he could not continue his studies and he is not fit to do any manual work. ...
Tag this Judgment!Chola Fish and Farms Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Mad)119; [1987]166ITR601(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to development rebate at 40% on the trawlers for the assessment year 1974-75 under section 33(1)(b)(A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of catching and selling fish from the seas with the help of powered mechanised trawlers. In the return filed for the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 56,660 and in arriving at this loss, it had deducted a sum of Rs. 61,456 by way of development rebate in respect of new trawlers purchased and used by it during the relevant previous year. There is no dispute that the cost of acquisition of the new trawlers was Rs. 1,53,643. The assessee claimed that it was entitled to rebate at the rate of 40 per cent. under section 33(1)(b)(A) of the...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad237
ORDER1. The challenge in the writ petition is of the declaration under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The main point urged by Mr. G. Desappan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to noncompliance with S. 45 of the Act with regard to service of notice for the enquiry under S. 5A of the Act. According to the petitioner, he was not served with any notice for the enquiry under Sec. 5Aof the Act. In answer, what has been stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent, is that the notices for the enquiry under S. 5A of the Act and for award enquiry were served by affixture as the petitioner was a nonresident of the village. The files produced by the learned Government advocate show that the notice was straightway affixed in the land in question. The records do disclose that the authorities were aware of the address of the peti6oner and that is why it is not claimed before this Court that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Khadar Shariff and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad40; (1987)IMLJ159
1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of Justice Mohan rendered in a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of the orders of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board appointing Executive Officers to administer the day-to-day affairs of certain Wakfs in Tamil Nadu. In one case, the Wakf Board besides appointing an Executive Officer chose to appoint a committee consisting of five persons to fxwork along with the Muthawalli of the Wakf and the same is challenged by the persons affected. The learned Judge dismissed all the Writ Petitions holding that the Wakf Board had power under S. 15 of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to appoint an Executive Officer or/and a committee to function along with the Muthawalli of the Wakf for the purpose of better administration of the Wakf.2. The aggrieved appellants contend that the provisions of the Act do not enable the Wakf Board to appoint either an Executive Officer or a committee when there...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Electronic Components Limited Vs. Asst. Registrar of Companies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas8(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J. 1. This revision petition is against the conviction. 2. A prosecution was launched by the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, for the violation of the provisions of section 295 of the Companies Act. Accused No. 1 is a private limited company. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors of the company. Accused No. 5 is the beneficiary of the loan. She happens to be the wife of accused No. 2, the managing director. 3. The case of the prosecution is that an advance of Rs. 5,000 was given to accused No. 5 by the directors of the company and that the advance was recoverable from her at the rate of Rs. 200 per mensem from her salary. Since accused No. 5 is related to the second accused as a wife, provisions of section 295 of the Companies Act were violated and the accused were guilty of an offence punishable under section 295(4) of the Act. The factum of the advance was not disputed by the accused. Their contention was only that the advance cannot be construed as a loan within...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kothari Textiles Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: [1988]172ITR448(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, the following identical question has been referred in these two cases as there was an appeal and a cross appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 1,44,061 was incurred towards 'current repairs' ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. The accounting year is the calendar year preceding the relevant assessment year. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 1,44,061 as revenue expenditure. It was its case that the expenditure represented import duties, clearing and forwarding charges as also consulting fees and erection and servicing charges in connection with the installation of blow room lines in the assessee's textile mills and that, therefore, it is an expenditure incurred towards current repairs. The Income...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandran Vs. M.G. Ramachandran, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad207
ORDER1. This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the first respondent to s w cause by what authority he claims to have, use, enjoy and perform the duties, rights and privileges of the Office of the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument invited my attention to Art. 164, sub-clause (3) and also to Form V of Oaths of Office, prescribed under Third Schedule. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent in a conference convened at Madurai by All World M. G. Ramachandra Mandram has requested the members of the Mandram to give him a promise, and that is the members of Mandram must carry knives with them. Whenever the police fails to punish their enemies, knives will be useful for their self-defence. 'The exact averment in the affidavit is in para 6.which reads as follows -'Close to midnight on 13th July 1986, the first respondent while addressing his fans (blood kins as he claims them) ...
Tag this Judgment!Margabandhu and anr. Vs. Kothandarama Mandhiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ267
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in this Second Appeal. They are the children of the 1st plaintiff, who is the wife of the 1st defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant is the concubine of the 1st defendant and defendants 3 to 6 are the children through the 2nd defendant. The suit was laid by the mother and her two children for maintenance of the 1st plaintiff and for partition and separate possession of the 2/3rd share belonging to plaintiffs 2 and 3.2. The 1st defendant resisted the suit contending that the 2nd defendant is not his concubine but a lawfully wedded wife and that defendants 3 to 6 are the legitimate heirs of the 1st defendant along with plaintiffs 2 and 3. Thus, plaintiffs 2 and 3 will be entitled each to 1/5th share. The claim for maintenance is resisted on the ground of voluntary desertion.3. On these contentions, the trial Court found that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to partition and separate possession...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »