Chennai Court February 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.
M. Manickam Asari Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ246
Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 389 of 1976, District Munsif's Court, Madurai Town, is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit property, bearing Door Nos. 47 and 48 and situate in T.S.No. 1387 in Madurai Town, measures 28' east to west and 251/2 feet north to south, inclusive of a shed measuring north to south 191/2' and east to west 9'. On 27-12-1947, Chidambaram Asari and his wife, Rathinammal, who owned the suit property, leased out to the appellant a vacant site for a period of three years measuring 9' east to west and 27' north to south from out of a larger extent of the property with common pathway rights and rights in a well. Subsequently, on 16-12-1951, Rathinammal leased out to the appellant the same property, viz., 9' x 27' for a further period of three years. On the death of Rathinammal, her daughter, the 1st respondent herein, became entitled to her properties, and on 30-8-1954, the Ist respondent leased out to the appellant the very same property, viz., 9' x 27...
G.K. Anandan Alias G. Kilianandam Vs. P. Parimalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ403
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. By consent of parties, these revision petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. These revision petitions have been directed against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 6469 and 6470 of 1987 in O.P. No. 305 of 1984 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and I.A. No. 22280 of 1987 in O.P. No. 893 of 1987 on the file of the I Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The petitioner in the former two revision petitions and the respondent in the latter revision petition is the husband and the other party in these revision petitions is his wife. For purpose of convenience, I shall refer the husband as the petitioner and the wife as the respondent in all these revision petitions.3. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 15.9.1976 and a female child was born to them, on 7.9.1978 named Rajalakshmi alias Ammu. It appears that certain misunderstandings arose between the spouses and they have been living separately eversince the year 19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Govindarajulu (Decd.) by Legal Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR112(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The assessee, who died during the pendency of these tax cases, was the managing director of M/s. Sri Hari Mills Private Limited. He gifted certain agricultural lands to his wife, who has been brought on record in these cases as the third respondent, under a document dated May 8, 1954. She sold the lands in 1959 for a sum of Rs. 65,000 and deposited the sale proceeds with the company M/s. Sri Hari Mills Private Limited. She received a sum of Rs. 5,790 by way of interest on the deposit from the company during the accounting year ending with March 31, 1965. While making assessment for the year 1965-66, the Income-tax Officer held that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 5,790 was income received from an asset transferred by the assessee to his wife and, therefore, it was liable to be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the assessment of M/s. Sri Hari Mills Private Limited, for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1967-68 to 1...
Shanti Swarup Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(39)ELT29(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is the 8th accused in C.C. 985 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Madras. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying for a direction to the Special Public Prosecutor, not to conduct the prosecution in C.C. 985 of 1986, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, Madras. 2. According to the petition the Collector of Customs, Madras, has filed a private complaint under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 in C.C. 985 of 1986 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.), Egmore, Madras against the petitioner, and 9 others alleging that they had committed the offences under Section 122-B read with Section 420 read with S. 511 I.P.C. Section 468, 471 read with S. 468, I.P.C. and Section 5(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner filed a petition before the said Court praying that ...
Rashid Leathers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Super Fine SkIn Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas684(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan 1. These two appeals arise out of a petition for winding up filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. The appellant in OSA No. 116 of 19987 was the respondent in Company Petition No. 87 of 1985 and the appellant in OSA No. 174 of 1987 was the petitioner in the company petition. The parties will be referred to hereinafter by their rank in the company petition. 2. It is not a matter in dispute that the petitioner supplied skins of sheep and goats to the respondent from January, 1981, to July, 1982, under 17 bills marked as exhibits P-2 to P-18. There was no time limit fixed for payment of the price of the goods, nor was there any agreement to pay interest on delayed payments. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,24,752.88 was due to the petitioner, and it was making demands on the respondent to pay the same. It issued a notice through a lawyer on December 8, 1982, and the notice is marked as exhibit P- 45. In that notice, it had but only demanded the payment of the p...
Simpson and Co. Ltd. (by Executive Director (Finance) and Secretary), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ293Mad
1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal today. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to afford the petitioner such police protection on such days as deemed necessary in order to enable the petitioner to remove the dyes and castings from the premises of the second respondent at 16-17 Super A, Guindy Industrial Estate, Madras 32. 3. The items of goods sought to be removed are given in the schedule to the petition. They are four in numbers. The second respondent-company is under lock-out. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to remove the items mentioned in the schedule. It is not in dispute that the items in dispute belong to the petitioner. The petitioner owes a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 to the second respondent. The worker's interest will be protected if this amount is directed to be invested in a nationalised bank for the period during which the lock-out continues. Accordingly, the petitione...
P. Raju Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Godown Assessment Circle, Madras-1 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC122(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. On the allegation that the petitioner, who is admittedly an assessee and a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is a regular defaulter in the payment of monthly taxes, steps were taken demanding of the petitioner to deposit additional security as per section 21(2-B) of the Act. The notice of demand issued by the first respondent is dated 16th May, 1981. Prior to the demand, there was no opportunity of being heard afforded to the petitioner, as contemplated under section 21(2-C) of the Act. This notice of demand was followed up by a show cause issued by the first respondent to the petitioner on 9th June, 1981 whereunder the petitioner was called upon the explain as to why the registration certificate issued to him under the Act should not be cancelled. On 1st July, 1981, the first respondent passed orders cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner ag...
K. Krishnamurthi Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad102
ORDERMohan, J. 1. The petitioner was an erstwhile member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elected from Kumbakonam Constituency. The petitioner participated in the Tamil Nadu Assembly proceedings held on 28-1-1988.2. The third respondent Commissioner of Police, had given a statement, which had come to be published in all Englishand Tamil dailies. He was instructed by the fourth respondent, Speaker of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, to move in with necessary police force to disperse the unruly elements and restore peace in the Tamil Nadu Assembly precincts on that day, viz., 28th Jan- 1988. The third respondent reiterated that there was a specific order from the fourth respondent to him. He and the police force entered into the Assembly only on orders from the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.Thus, the third respondent has committed an act, which is unconstitutional and the same is justified by him. In fact, the third respondent had committed a crime without any juri...
Trinite Modestine Vs. Jayaseeli Lagrave and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ201
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. This is a petition filed by a third party to implead him as the second appellant in the above second appeal.2. The material averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition are as follows: The petitioner was employed in French Army in France and the first respondent herein is the younger sister of his mother. His only close relative at Pondicherry was the first respondent. He wanted to buy some agricultural property at Pondicherry to provide for his occupation and income after his retirement. With this view, he paid a sum of Rs. 9,000 to the first respondent in the year 1963 and requested her to purchase some property for him. Accordingly, the first respondent entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property advancing a sum of Rs. 4,000. Again in 1968, he paid another sum of Rs. 30,000 to her towards the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property. As he could not stay in Pondicherry after the expiry of his leave, he reque...
Saroja Ravindran Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Mad)1; [1989]177ITR302(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question which has been referred at the instance of the assessee reads as follows: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the 12-year National Defence Certificates and 10-year Defence Deposit Certificates of the value of Rs. 50,000 held by the assessee were not entitled to exemption under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. The assessee in her wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 claimed exemption from tax with reference to agricultural lands, residential house and 12-year National Defence Certificates and 10-year Defense Deposit Certificates held by her of the total value of Rs. 50,000. These certificates were purchased by the assessee on March 31, 1964, and March 2, 1968, respectively. The assessee had also claimed exemption from tax to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 out of the value of shares held by her in various limited companies and deposits in banks. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessees claim for exemption of the va...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »