Chennai Court February 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.
S.K. Kondo Vs. Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ946
Davit Annoussamy, J. 1. This is a petition by the wife of the detenu Marineri Kondo, under Art. 226 of the Constitution 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 Tamil Nadu on 13-5-1986 with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods. 3. The circumstances under which the order of detention was passed are as follows : The detenu who is a Japanese national arrived at the Madras Airport coming from Singapore and he opted for Greek Channel in Customs. When upon suspicion, his baggage were opened, the following were recovered - (1) Four gold biscuits each weighing 10 tolas from the bottom portion of the Achiever flash; (2) Five gold biscuits each weighing ten tolas from the automatic shutter; and (3) Three gold biscuits, each weighing ten tolas from each log of the tripod stand of the camera; The total gold so recovered amounts to 18 ...
R. Jesudasan Vs. K. Selvaraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ470Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two writ appeals concern the controversy between a private school, of which the first-respondent is the correspondent-Secretary, and its Headmaster the appellant herein, who has been sent out of service. The statute that will govern the controversy is the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974). hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.The facts require delineation as follows:On 9th April 1976, the Headmaster wrote a letter as follows:THE LAKSHMI MILLS HIGH SCHOOLR. Jesudasan, B.A., B.T., HeadmasterKovilpatti, Dated: 9.4.76.ToThe Correspondent, Lakshmi Mills High School, Kovilpatti.Respected Sir,Due to my family inconvenience, I am unable to continue here as Headmaster and I resign. Hence I request you to kindly relieve me at your earliest convenience.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,(Sd.) R. Jesudasan 9.4.1976On the very same date, he wrote another letter, which ran as follows:THE LAKSHMI MILLS HIGH SCHOOLR. Jesudes...
R. Jesudasan Vs. K. Selvaraj, Correspondent/Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ229
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two writ appeals concern the controversy between a private school, of which the first respondent is the Correspondent Secretary, and its headmaster, the appellant herein, who has been sent out of service.The Statute that will govern the controversy is the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts require delineation as follows: On 9-4-1976, the headmaster wrote a letter as follows:THE LAKSHMI MILLS HIGH SCHOOLR. Jesudasan, B.A., B.T., HeadmasterKovilPatti, Dated: 9-4-1976.ToThe Correspondent, Lakshmi Mills High School, Kovilpatti.Respected Sir,Due to may family inconvenience, I am unable to continue here as Headmaster and I resign. Hence, I request you to kindly relieve me at your earliest convenience.Thanking you,Your faithfully,(Sd.) R. Jesudasan 9-4-1976.On 10-4-1976, the, resignation of the headmaster was accepted by the private school and the headmaster was rel...
S. Krishnamurthi Vs. District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad19
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :'.....to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, directing the first respondent herein to return the 201 bags of paddy (each 60 kilos) seized by the second respondent from the lorry TCJ 1215 on 31-8-1988 to the petitioner.....' 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by Sivasubramaniam, J. on 5-9-1988. While ordering notice of motion returnable on 12-9-1988, the learned Judge ordered that the paddy seized from the petitioner shall not be sold if they are still available. This order was made on 5-9-1988.3. The learned Government Advocate appears before me with instructions.4. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal today.5. It seems that 201 bags of paddy were seized from the lorry bearing No. TCJ 1215 on 31-8-1988. by the District Supply Officer, Cuddalore, who was accompanied by the Special Tahsildar. Roving Squad near Kandamangalam, Kattu...
indrani and Other Vs. S. Ramalingam and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC278; AIR1990Mad192
ORDERBellie, J.1. The claimants in the motor accident case are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. An award was passed in their favour by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal but that was set aside in the appeal by a learned single Judge of this court.2. The first claimant is the mother and the claimants 2 and 3 are her childeren. The first claimant's husband Ekambaram, while he was travelling in a lorry MDF 3002 on G.S.T. Road, Thirutheri village, on 13-10-70 at 2.00 a.m. The lorry met with an accident which resulted in his death. Alleging that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry the accident occurred the claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- The petition was filed against the owner-driver of the lorry the first respondent, and the insurance company second respondent.3. The first respondent contested the petition contending that the deceased was a clandestine traveller in the lorry and the accident was not due-to the rash and negligent driving and theref...
India Leather Corporation (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Mad)18; [1989]179ITR170(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company was not an industrial company within the meaning of clause 2(6)(c) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 1970 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year we are concerned with is 1970-71, for which the previous year ended on December 31, 1969. The assessee has its head office at Madras and a tannery at Tiruchy. The original assessment was completed on March 29, 1973, but on appeal, it was reduced to Rs. 6,95,620. Later, the assessment was reopened under section 147(b) of the Act and the assessee was found to be a non-industrial company for purposes of levy of tax. The income-tax Officer ascertained the total income at Rs. 7,37,969 and 51% o...
Bhupendrakumar R. Parikh and Another Vs. M.K. Lakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad46
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. The first appeal is by defendents 3 and 4.The second appeal was preferred by the first defendant, who is now represented by his legal heirs, appellants 2 to 7. Respondents 1 to 4 in that appeal are, respectively the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 in the suit.2. The case of the plaintiff may be summarized as follows:The plaintiff is the second wife of one Alagappa Chettiar and out of that wedlock she had two sons and one daughter. On account of misunderstanding between her husband and her mother Kannammal, she left her husband and came to Madras with their children in the year 1951 and resided at No. 1. Shanmugha Mudali Street, Royapettah Madras, which house belonged to her mother. She used to work as a musician and film artiste. Her children also contributed to the family expenses as film artistes. When her mother was alive, the first defendant who was then manager of a Cinema theatre became known to the plaintiff's mother and was frequenting her residence....
The State Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1497
1. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal of the respondent-accused. 2. The Food Inspector of Thiruvarur Municipality, P.W. 1, on 23-11-1982 at 11.30 a.m. inspected the premises of the respondent-accused at No. 7, V.R.M. Road, Thiruvarur and took sample of butter. After complying with the formalities he sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst, who in turn sent a report, Exhibit P. 6 stating that the sample sent falls below the minimum standard prescribed. He preferred the complaint on 10-1-1983 before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. 3. The trial Court found the respondent guilty under the relevant provisions of the Provision of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') convicted him thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1984 before the Sessions Cour...
S.N. Hamid Abdul Khader Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR323(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. Under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion regarding the levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is an individual having share income from a firm, income from property and interest on securities, etc. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 33,423. In completing the assessment, the Income-Tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 in the total income of the assessee. The amount so included represented a cash credit and the assessee claimed that that amount related to the encashment of a raffle ticket which required the first prize in the held on September 25, 1970. Apart from some discrepancies found by the Incom...
Needle Industries (i.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)217; [1990]183ITR393(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, the following question of law last been referred to this court for its opinion: 'Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the report of the internal audit party was information received subsequent to the assessment although the said report did not contain any new facts which were not before the Income-tax Officer at the time of the original assessment and considered by him?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of needles. For purposes of its business, the assessee purchased raw materials, consumable stores, spare parts and sundry tools and it had insured them against the risk of loss by fire. In April, 1967, a fire broke out in the building where the raw materials, etc., were stocked and they were destr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›