Chennai Court November 1989 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. O. Hassan Kuthoos Maricar (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD493(Mad)
ORDER1. These two appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The assessee contests the disallowance of the companys contribution towards provident fund of three directors of Rs. 3,600 in the assessment year 1980-81 and Rs. 12,400 in the assessment year 1981-82. The contributions made were in respect of three of the directors of the assessee-company, viz., S/Shri M. H. Udhuman, M. H. Iqbal and M. H. Farook. The ground on which the ITO made the disallowance was that the contribution made was in respect of employees drawing salary in excess of Rs. 1,000 per month and, therefore, the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 did not apply to them and hence such deduction could not be allowed. This view was also upheld by the CIT (A).2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee took me through the Scheme of the E.P.F Act. We have also heard the learned departmental representative, who opposed the claim for deduction based on the reasons which weighed with the...
K.T. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. the Collector, Tiruvannamalia and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad181
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the police personnel illegally occupying the Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvadal Street, Tiruvan-namalai, Sambuvaroyar District and declare their occupation as illegal, unconstitutional and without any sanction of law.2. The petitioner claiming to the Managing Trustee of Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvannamalai has come up to this Court with the complaint that the first respondent came to the Madam and directed him to remove the articles belonging to the Madam to enable him to allot the premises to be used as Police Headquarters for the bifurcated North Arcot District, renamed as Sambuvaroyar district. The allegation made is that he refused to give the permission and the Special Officer was accompanied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner gave lawyer's notice on the same day setting forth his obje...
Micro Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Collector of Central Excise and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: 1992(40)LC313(Madras)
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. These two writ petitions are preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the first respondent rejecting its claims for refund of excise duty. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of medicines under Tariff item 14-E of the I Schedule in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'). It manufactures Leavamisole (L. Tetramisole) tablets and Dipyridamole tablets, among other medicines. The petitioner preferred a claim for refund by its letter dated 3.5.1983 claiming a refund of Rs. 50,291,18 on the ground that it has wrongly paid excise duty on these tablets for the period from 16.10.1982 to 16.4.1983. It preferred another claim for refund of Rs. 2,54,307.85 on 22.4.1984 on similar ground for the period from 3.5.1980 to 15.10.1982. After considering the refund applications, the first respondent allowed the claim for the period from 7.11.1982 to 16.4.1983 in one case and rejected the claim for the period from 16.10.1982 to 6.11.1982, on the grou...
V. Ammainathan President Board of Directors, the Pondicherry State, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ143
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The writ petition is taken up at the request of the writ petitioner with the consent of the respondents.2. The order challenged in the writ petition is passed by the second respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 13.7.1989 exercising his powers under Section 83 of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act superseding the management committee of the society of which the petitioner was the President. The Society is an apex society within the meaning of the Act and the rules. Under Section 32(3) of the Pondicherry Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the Committee shall consist of not less than nine and hot more than twenty one members as the society is classified as an apex society.3. Under the by laws of the Society, the Management Committee shall consist of 17 members, six them being delegates appointed by each of the six apex societies, another six being elected from among the delegates from societies ot...
In Re: Rt. Rev. Casmir Gnanadickam Archbishop of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ418
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This petition is for grant of Succession certificate in respect of the schedule mentioned bank balances said to have been left by the deceased Fr. Jacob Vettichirayil, a Roman Catholic Christian, Priest, who died on 10-6-1987. The petition is filed by Rt.Rev. Casmir Gnanadickam, Archbishop of Madras.2. It is stated in the petition that since the deceased, prior to his death, had become a Christian priest, his schedule mentioned bank balances will pass, on his death, to his superior, viz., the petitioner herein.3. But, I think this petition is misconceived. The inheritance law applicable to a person, who dies as a Christian, is contained in Part V of the Indian Succession Act. The first Section in the said Part is Section 29. Section 29(1) says that the said Part shall not apply to Hindus, Muhammadans, Buddhists, Sikhs or Jams. Section 29(2) reads as follows:Save as provided in Sub-section (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this ...
Velmurugan Vs. Haridas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ40
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by the decree-holder against the order in EA. No. 1241 of 1985 in E.P. No. 83 of 1985 in O.S. No. 832 of 1982 passed by the District Munsif, Tirukovilur. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition can be briefly stated as follows:The revision-petitioner herein and his father Singaravelu Iyer filed a suit in O.S. No. 832 of 1982 for redemption of the equitable mortgage executed in favour of one Sivalingam Pillai, who is the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 8 in the suit and obtained a decree for redemption. In execution of the said decree, they filed E.P. No. 83 of 1985 against the judgment-debtors. Thereupon, respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition in EA. No. 1241 of 1985 under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. to set aside the order regarding delivery passed in the E.P. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 is that the property described in A Schedule and the eastern one cent. ...
K. Mohammedkutty by Power Agent Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ445
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 5393 of 1983 decided on 11.7.1983. 2. The claim of the petitioner-appellant to the effect that the land in dispute was forest land was examined on merits by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gudalur in S.R. No. 7 of 1978 on 25.5.1978 and further in appeal by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Madras in A. I No. 5 of 1980 on 8.12.1980 and rejected. The appellant filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras on 23.1.1982. The Commissioner, Land Administration found that the revision petition was barred by 315 days. He also found that the appellant has failed to adduce convincing reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 315 days. Consequently, the revision petition was rejected by him as time barred on 221982. Subsequently, it transpires from the record that the appellant filed yet another revision petition before the Government, for which admitte...
Society of the Sisters of the Blessed VirgIn Mary, Presentation Conven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ70
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This appeal is directed by unsuccessful defendant. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be briefly stated as follows: The respondent plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 3529 of 1988 before the VIII Assistant Judge, City, Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of possession of the premises bearing door No. 59, Harris Road, Egmore, Pudupet, Madras 2 and also for recovery of mesne profits. He further prayed for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the wall and restore the gate and payment of arrears of rent upto January, 1988 amounting to Rs. 11,160. The defendant, who is the appellant herein, entered appearance through counsel. The suit was posted to 27.9.1989 for filing written statement and on that date, a memo of compromise signed by the plaintiff and the defendant was filed. The VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, directed the matter to be called on 29.9.1988 and the parties were also directed to appear before court on 29...
Vanathaiyan and anr. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2767
1. A-1 (Vanathaiyan) and A-3 (Arokkiasamy) in SC No. 162 of 1981 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants. The appellants along with three others were tried in the said Sessions case for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C., for having caused the death of the deceased Susai Mari in the course of rioting by the accused, who were the members of an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and spade handle. The trial Court acquitted all the accused of the charge of rioting and acquitted the other accused except the appellants of the charge of murder in pursuance of the common intention between them. The appellants were convicted for an offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The first charge for an offence under Section 147, I.P.C. was framed against all the five accused on the allegation that on 10-10-1980 at or about 6-45 a.m. at Thennur Village...
Maria Packiam Vs. Valliammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1989
Reported in: II(1990)DMC568
Janarthanam, J. 1. The first defendant in Original Suit No. 384 of 1977 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi is the appellant in the Second Appeal.2. That suit was filed by the first respondent-plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration of her right to be in possession of the property in Schedule I of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining her husband the second respondent-second defendant and the appellant-first defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same or in the alternative for possession.3. In pith and substance, the case of the plaintiff is as follows: -- She married the second defendant, after the death of his first wife. During the subsistence of her marriage, the second defendant also married one Mariammal in 1963. Consequently, she launched a prosecution against her husband second defendant before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah and the case had been taken on file in C.C. No. 165/63. The mediat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »