Chennai Court February 1989 Judgments
P. Subramani Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1106
Annoussamy, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against the detenu and setting him at liberty. 2. The order of detention was passed by the Government of Karnataka under S. 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 with a view to prevent the detenu from engaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods. 3. The short facts which led to the detention are as follows : On 13-1-1988 at 06.45 hours, the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Head quarters, Preventive II Belgaum and his staff accompanied by witnesses entered the second class Bogie No. 6738 of Bombay Bangalore Udyan Express train No. 129 which had arrived at the Gulbarga Railway station on information and reasonable belief that one passenger sitting on Seat No. 32 of the said bogie was carrying smuggled goods with him. The detenu was found actually ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Devi Films Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR200(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of film distribution, exhibition and sale of cine equipment. In respect of the assessment year 1967-68 (accounting year ended April 13, 1967), the assessment of the assessee was subjected to a number of additions, one of which was a sum of Rs. 53,741 representing the commission income derived by the assessee from the distribution of some pictures and that addition alone forms the subject-matter of this reference. It is not in dispute that the assessee has been following the mercantile system of accounting. The assessee maintained before the Income-tax Officer that the right of distribution of the pictures had been purchased outright by the assessee with retrospective effect in terms of a letter dated January 10, 1968, written by the assessee to one G. N. Velumani, modifying the terms of an earlier agreement in that regard entered into between the assessee and G. N. Velmani on April 22, 1966. On a considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: [1991]187ITR121(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : T.C.P. No. 561 of 1986 : For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 : 'Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the entire claim of gratunity liability as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 ?' For the assessment year 1979-80 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in allowing the entire claim of gratuity liability as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the cost of route permits should be capitalised and ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kathavan Servai and ors. Vs. Rahima Beevi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ278
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The question that presented difficulty to the learned Judges of this Court and which obliged them to refer the same to a Full Bench concerns the legal propriety of the plaintiff, who used for specific performance of a contract of a sale and who also, in the same suit, asked, in the alternative, for the relief of refund of earnest money or advance money, paid under the contract of sale preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Court, which granted him only the relief of return of the earnest money or advance money, or denying him the relief of specific performance. There are two pronouncement, both the Division Bench of this Court, one in Sakku Bai Ammal v. R. Babu Reddiar and Ors. (1977)1 M.L.J. 311 and the other in Senniappa Gounder v. V.K. Venkataraman and Ors. (1981) 94 L.W. 591. The earlier Bench expressed the view that when the plaintiff asked for reliefs in the alternative, he places such relief on per with each other and he makes an ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy and Another Vs. S.A.R. Annamalai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ974; AIR1990Mad201
1. These appeals arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The parents of the deceased, who have been awarded compensation have filed C.M. A. No. 809 of 1982, challenging the finding that the deceased also contributed to the accident and also seek enhancement of compensation together with interest, while the owner of the vehicle has filed A.A.O. No. 1103 of 1988, contending that a higher amount should have been deducted, for the negligence contributed by the deceased.2. Facts briefly are : On 10-7-1980, Balasubramaniam, son of the appellants in C.M.A. No. 809 of 1982, aged 6 years and 9 months at the time of his death was knocked down by a taxi bearing registration No. MDY 9599 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and driven by the third respondent. Balasubra-maniam sustained serious injuries and succumbed them soon after. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.C.O.P. No. 243 of 1980 unde...
Tag this Judgment!In the Matter of Patrick MartIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad231
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9-11-1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No. 18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988, Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petition would lie only before that Court, the mailer was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Courts jurisdiction in the matter has been p...
Tag this Judgment!Bhanumathy Vs. M. Venkatesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad239
ORDERSathiadev, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 23 of 1984, Sub Court, Salem is the petitioner herein. She filed the suit for partition and separate possession of A and B schedule properties, and for a direction to take accounting of the profits of the firm of Narayana Udayar and Brothers, which was dissolved in 1980 and pay the amounts which had become due to her.2. Pending disposal of the suit, she filed I. A. 933 of 1988 to reopen the case, so that she may be examined for adducing further oral and documentary evidence. The suit was posted on 13-6-1988 for further arguments. It was on that day, she filed an affidavit in the above-said I. A. claiming that she could not go from Madras to Salem every time for the hearing of the suit, and therefore, she had deputed her husband, who used to contact her previous advocate and intimate her about the stage of the suit. Her husband was extracting money and jewels from her and leading wayward life, and enmity developed when she refused to oblige hi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mr. Patrik Martin, Mrs. Ragina MartIn Represented by Power Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ27
David Annoussamy, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9.11.1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No. 18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988. Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petition would lie only before that Court, the matter was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the Petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Court's jurisdiction in ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswamy and anr. Vs. S.A.R. Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ480
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. These appeals arise out of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The parents of the deceased, who have been awarded compensation have filed C.M.A. No. 809 of 1982, challenging the finding that the deceased also contributed to the accident and also seek enhancement of compensation together with interest, while the owner of the vehicle has filed A.A.O. No. 1103 of 1988, contending that a higher amount should have been deducted for the negligence contributed by the deceased.2. Facts briefly are: On 10-7-1980, Balasubramaniam, son of the appellant in C.M.A.No. 809 of 1982, aged 6 years and 9 months at the time of his death, was knocked down by a taxi bearing registration No. MDY 9599 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent and driven by the third respondent. Balasubramaniam sustained serious injuries and succumbed to them soon after. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.C.O.P...
Tag this Judgment!Dharman and Another Vs. N.C. Srinivasan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC507; 1990ACJ27; AIR1990Mad14
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. The ownerand driver respectively of a motor cycle against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had passed an award, confirmed by this Court in appeal, have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Facts briefly are : On 6-3-1980 at 7.05 p. m. motor cycle bearing registration No. TMC 6883 which had formerly belonged to the third respondent herein and on the day of the accident had belonged to the first appellant, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the second appellant and dashed against the first respondent-claimant and caused him serious injuries. The first respondent filed O. P. 525 of 1980 under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.3. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the second appellant, but was due to the negligence of the first respon...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »