Chennai Court March 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.
Vembuli and anr. Vs. Managing Director Pallavan Transport Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC276
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The parents of the victim of a Motor Accident have filed the present appeal contending that, the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate.2. On 30-8-1981, Sekar, the son of the appellants herein aged 16 and studying in the X standard was knocked down dead by a bus No. TMN 752 belonging to the respondent herein. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants filed M.O.P. No. 318 of 1981 before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge) Chengalpattu claiming a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.3. The respondent resisted the claim on the ground that the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased boy, in suddenly crossing the road and that driver was neither rash nor negligent. The quantum of compensation claimed was also excessive. Before the Tribunal the father of the deceased boy, the second appellant herein, examined himself as PW 1 and he examined an eyewitness to the occurrence as PW 2. Exs. A-1 t...
Nagasundaram and anr. Vs. the State Govt. of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ61
Annoussamy, J.1. These are two writ petitions referring to the same transactions, which were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. In both the writ petitions, what is sought for is the quashing of the detention orders and the setting at liberty the detenus. In the first writ petition (W.P. No. 11262/88), the name of the detenu is Kamalanathan and it is filed by the father of the detenu. In the second writ petition (W.P. No. 11263/88), the name of the detenu is Gopalakrishnan and it is filed by his wife. 3. Both the detention orders were passed by the State Government on 30-8-1988 under Section 3(i)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to preventing the detenus from engaging in transporting smuggled goods. 4. The facts leading to the present detention are spelt out in detail in the grounds of detention and it is not necessary to extract them here. Summarily stated, on 1-4-1988 the Custom Officers...
Auditor Dasaradha Rami Reddy Charities Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)124; [1989]177ITR249(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, as S.L. No. 357 of 1985 and the objects of the society are purely charitable in nature, as may be seen from the memorandum of association of the society, according to which, the income from the properties of the society should be applied solely for fulfilling the objects of the society and no portion thereof can either be directly or indirectly paid to its members either by way of dividend or by way of profits. Immediately after the registration. The society applied to the first respondent herein for registration under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the grant of exemption under section 80G of the Act. By proceedings in C. No. 1146-III (145) of 1985 dated December 30, 1985, the society was registered as No. 130/III of 1985 and by proceedings No. 1146-III (145) of 1985 dated December 30, 1985, the petitioner ...
R. Anandakumar and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: [1992]196ITR219(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These tax (revision) cases have been preferred by some of the partners of the firm, Tuttapullam Estate, respectively, under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the common order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras-5, dated June 17, 1988. For the assessment year 1984-85, on applications filed by the petitioners praying for permission to compound the tax payable, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer granted such permission to the petitioners by his orders dated December 31, 1984, January 17, 1985, January 21, 1985, January 25, 1985, March 26, 1985, etc. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax issued a notice dated December 15, 1987 to the petitioners under section 34 of the Act requiring the petitioners to state as to why the order passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer under section 65(5) of the Act should not be cancelled and the Agricultural Income-tax ...
Y. Arul Nadar Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Thanjavur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad33
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This is reference made to Full Bench by K. M. Natarajan, J. As we could sec from the order of reference by the learned single Judge, the main question that requires resolution by us is as to whether the provision of Section 21A inserted by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act 17 of 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Reduction Act, into the Tamil Nadu Laud Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58 of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Parent Act, is applicable to the proceedings initiated already under the Parent Act and pending at the time of coming into force of the Reducation Act. The other question relates to the applicability, of amendments to effects (sic) similar to Section 21A introduced in S. 3(14) of the Parent Act by the Reduction Act, to pending proceedings. We shall not trouble ourselves with the details of the facts of the case in view of the scope of the questions referred for our answer. The learned single Judge...
Minor Habib Rahman and ors. Vs. Ramu Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: [1992]195ITR734(Mad); (1991)IMLJ254
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 77 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsiff, Devakottai, are the appellates in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. the plaintiffs laid the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The case put forth by the plaintiffs ran as follows : 2. The plaintiff's are the sons of one Abdul Majid. Abdul Majid was earlier married, to one Ummu Ammal. she was subsequently divorced. On September 15, 1942, as per the original of exhibit A-2 and on October 24, 1942, as per the original of exhibit A-3, Abdul Majid purchased the suit property benami in the name of Ummu Ammal, and Abdul Majid is the real purchaser of the suit property. After divorcing Ummu Ammal, Abdul Majid married Ameena Ammal, the mother of the plaintiffs. Possession continued with Abdul Majid and he sold the suit property to his sons, the plaintiffs under exhibit A-1 on July 19, 1987. However, Ummu Ammal, on May 24, 1977, under exh...
S. Muthiah Pillai Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ41
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is one preferred under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant faced three charges before the Additional Director of Enforcement. Of the three charges, we are concerned only with the first charge, which reads as follows:that during March, 1963, the appellant, in contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) read with Section 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, attempted to receive a sum of Rs. 40,000 from a person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange by order or on behalf of one Shri.R.M.T. Ramaswamy Pillai of Pe-nang, a person resident outside India.The appellant, though he was penalised for all the three charges, yet confined his further agitation before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board only to the first charge. The facts put against the appellant are as follows: During the course of the search of the business premises of M/s. Shanmugha Credit Corporation, Tiruchirappalli, by th...
Far Wood Industries Represented, by the Proprietor M.P. Farook Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ389
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus for bearing respondents 1 to 3 and their men from awarding the items Al to A6 of Schedule-A and items Cl and C2 of Schedule C of the tender for the interior design of M.M.D.A. office at M.M.D.A. Towers, Madras-8 to the contractors who quoted higher rate than that of the petitioner and direct respondents 1 to 3 to award the above items in favour of the petitioner. It is further prayed to grant the relief of compensation in addition to the above relief for the portion of work already compleged at the rate of 20% of the quotation value submitted by the petitioner and such other reeliefs as the court may deem fit.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition can be stated as follows: The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (2nd respondent) is constructing a building called M.M.D.A. towers situated at Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Madras-8. ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Sileshkumar R. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR10(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The order of reference by the Division Bench in this case reads as follows : 'The following two questions have been referred to this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court : (a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale proceeds of the house property credited in the books of the firm is in the nature of a trust and, hence, it does not form part of the assets of the firm (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act, the Tribunal was justified in excluding the sums of Rs. 2,923 and Rs. 47,077 from the principal value of the estate The second question raises the true scope and ambit of section 46(1)(b) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The said provision was the subject-matter of two decisions of this co...
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC303(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. In this reference, the question that comes up for consideration is as to whether an assessee, who has not raised a dispute over a particular turnover in the original grounds of appeal under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', could be permitted to raise additional grounds over the same subsequently. The provocation for the reference by the Division Bench, who heard the tax case, was the pronouncement of the earlier Division Bench in State of Tamil Nadu v. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited [1977] 39 STC 285 (Mad.). There it was expressed 'there was no jurisdiction for the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to permit the raising of additional grounds in respect of the turnover which was not disputed in the original appeal, filed in the prescribed form and therefore the Tribunal erred in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the assessability of the additi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »