Chennai Court October 1988 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.
Umayal Ramanathan Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circle-i (2), Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: [1992]194ITR462(Mad)
1. This is an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 637 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras. 2. Brief facts are : - The Income-tax Officer, City Circle-I (2), Madras, launched a prosecution against the petitioner (fourth accused) and three others (accused Nos. 1 to 3) for offences under section 120B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 276C, 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner owned vacant land to the extent of 11 grounds and 276 sq. ft., situated in Door No. 25, Ritherdon Road, Madras. The first accused is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the criminal court are the directors of the first accused company. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the first accused company represented by its directors (accused Nos. 2 and 3), for the sale of the vacan...
Dr. (Mrs.) C.K. Gajalakshmi Vs. Zinna Sons, a Registered Partnership F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ164
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The landlady, who was successful in obtaining an order for eviction before the Rent Controller under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, but failed before the appellate authority, is the petitioner herein.2. The petitioner is a doctor. After having passed M.B., B.S., in this country, she went to United States of America for getting higher qualifications and returned towards the end of 1979. Her husband is a qualified Engineer who also got higher qualifications in United States of America. The petitioner purchased the petition premises on 26-2-1980 under Ex. P.2 from the prior owner thereof. According to the petitioner, the purchase was made with a view to occupy the same for purpose of residence and also a clinic besides office of consultancy for the husband of the petitioner. The ground floor of the premises was vacant at the time when the petition was filed. The tenant 5th respo...
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India and ors. Vs. Beema Manu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC142
Mohan, J.1. Both these writ appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in W.P. Nos. 5013 of 1978 and 17 of 1979 dated 27.1.1982. The writ petitions were filed praying the High Courtto issue writs of certiorari calling for the records on the files of the first respondent in Order No. 1962/1977 dated 29.10.1977 and in Order No. 2061/1977 dated 5.12.1977 and of the Second Respondent in A. No. 445/73 (M) (1290/75) dated 23.7.1975 and in A.No. 523/73(M) order in Appeal No. 1291/75 dated 23.7.1975 and of the third respondent in C.No. V/30.A/3/8/72 Tech. dated 8.12.1972 and C.No. V/30.A3/9/72 Tech. dated 15.12.1972, respectively in W.P. Nos. 5013 of 1978 and 17 of 1979 and quash the same.However, the learned Judge, for reasons stated in his judgment, held that the products manufactured by the respondents herein will fall within Tariff Item No. 30-A of the Central Excise Tariff. Having held so, he went on to add:Yet another contention taken by respondents is that, the petitioners cannot s...
Sakkarathayammal and ors. Vs. Shanmugavel Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ175
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Defendants 4, 6 and 7 Legal representative of Fifth Defendant in O.S. No.85 of 1974, Sub Court, Tuticorin are appellants herein. Plaintiff is the first respondent. Second defendant having died, his legal representatives are impleaded as respondents 4 to 8. Third defendant, the wife of the second defendant is the wife of the third respondent.2. The suit was filed for declaration of plaintiff's title to the 1st Schedule property, and to direct defendants 4 to 7 to deliver possession, and to pay mesne profits or in the alternative to direct defendants 2 and 3 to pay plaintiff the amounts specified in the 2nd Schedule with costs.3. In the plaint it is stated that third defendant is the wife of the second defendant. First Schedule Property bearing Door No : 323, North Car Street, Sankarankovil alongwith other properties were settled by one Sankaralinga Mudaliar and his wife Nedungi. Animal in favour of defendants 2 and 3 under settlement deed dated : 16-9-1968. Four dau...
Heatly and Gresham (i) Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ278Mad
Bellie, J.1. The issue for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal is with regard to the coverage of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant, Messrs. Heatly and Gresham (India) Limited is a public limited company and it is in occupation of the third floor of the Indian Chamber Buildings, Madras. It deals with machine tools, civil engineering and material handling equipments, oil burners, etc. Oil burners are assembled and manufactured in its factory at Sahibabad in Uttar Pradesh which has been covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The other materials are purchased from manufacturers, stored in godowns and despatched from the stores directly to the parties. In Madras, the said premises is a branch office as also in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and Ahmedabad. The Tamil Nadu Government issued a notification in G. O. Ms. No. 1008, dated December 22, 1976 extending the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act to...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Universal Exporters and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC174
Mohan, J.1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the judgment of our learned brother Ramanujam, J. (Printed at page 177 infra). The short facts are as follows: The petitioners before him were carrying on garment export business at Madras. They were granted necessary export quota on the strength of their past export performance. 2. The Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council had been entrusted with the function of granting export assistance for cotton textiles. The ratio of such assistance was decided by Export Promotion Council for the period 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979. The terms and conditions of the assistance were informed to all garment exporters. The petitioners relying on the said announcement, began to prepare for the export by buying huge stock of cloth and cutting them to various export garment specifications and quantities. As and when they were ready, they were exported to foreign buyers. The petitioners firm and other exporters received a circular from the Export Promotion Co...
N. Prem Ananthi Vs. Tahsildar, Coimbatore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad248
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a shocking case whichmay not find a parallel anywhere in the worldof a married woman obtaining a certificate ofwidowhood from a Revenue Official in thelower echelons' by fraudulently invoking thepresumption under Section 108 of the EvidenceAct, knowing fully well that her husband isalive with a view to secure admission in aGovernment Medical College under the quotareserved for widows. 2. According to the affidavit of the writ petitioner she was given in marriage on 11-9-1975 to one R. L Selvaraj of Bhavani, who was at that time a Final Year M.B.B.S. student in Rangaraya Medical College, Kakinada. The affidavit proceeds to state that the husband had demanded huge sums of money and jewellery gold and diamond, vessels-silver, brass and stainless steel, besides furniture wooden and steel, and that her father spent more than Rs. three lacks for the marriage. , According to her, within a few days after the marriage, the husband started ill-treating her both phys...
S. Sankaranarayanan Vs. the Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Divi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ99
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2526 of 1976. The appellant herein was the first-respondent in the Writ Petition; the first - respondent herein was the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the second respondent herein was the second-respondent in the writ petition. We propose to refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petition. The first respondent, who was employed at the relevant point of time as an Assistant Station Master at Kokkalancheri in Madurai Division of the Southern Railway was allotted quarters, which he did not occupy. However, the rent of Rs. 178.60 was recovered from his wages for the period from 10.12.1972 to 10.11.1973. Complaining that the deduction was not authorised Under the provisions of the payment of wages Act 4 of 1936, herein after referred to as the Act, the first-respondent filed P.W.Case No. 24 of 1974, on the file of the second-respondent, seeking for recovery back ...
Heatly and Gresham (i) Limited Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ517
ORDERBellie, J.1. The issue for decision in this Letters Patent Appeal is with regard to the coverage of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (Act 34 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant, Messrs. Heatly and Gresham (India) Limited is a public limited company and it is in occupation of the third floor of the Indian Chamber Buildings, Madras. It deals with machine tools, civil engineering and material handling equipments, oil burners, etc., Oil burners are assembled and manufactured in its factory at Sahibabad in Uttar Pradesh which has been covered under the Employees State Insurance Act. The other materials are purchased from manufacturers, stored in godowns and despatched from the stores directly to the parties. In Madras, the said premises is a branch office as also in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and Ahmedabad. The Tamil Nadu Government issued a notification in G.O.Ms. No. 1008, dated 22-12-1976 extending the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act to certa...
Syndicate Bank, Pollachi, Branch, Represented by Its Branch Manager Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ316
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiff Bank is the appellant in this Letters Patent appeal. The Syndicate Bank, Pollachi Branch, filed the suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,533-55 alleged to be due on a promissory note Ex.A-1, dated 16.2.1970. This promissory note was executed by the defendants for the loan of Rs. 22,900 received from the Bank for purchase of a tractor by the first defendant. First defendant is the son and the second defendant is his father and it appears the second defendant has joined in the promissory note as surety for his son the first defendant. The suit claim is alleged to be due after deduction of the amount paid by the defendants.2. In the written statement various contentions were raised which were all considered by the trial Court which decreed the suit. With respect to one contention the defendants preferred an appeal and that contention is with regard to the rate of interest charged by the plaintiff Bank and in the appeal A.S. No. 174 of 1980...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »