Chennai Court April 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.
Bhaskaran and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2260
ORDER1. This is a revision against the order of the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kulithalai in Cri. M.P. No. 2142 of 1985 rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the accused. 2. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for contravention of the provisions of S. 40 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 r/w Rr. 25 and 26(5) of the Rules framed under the Act. Such contravention is punishable under Section 45(2)(CC) of the Act. Under S. 45(2)(CC) of the Act, an offender is liable to be punished only by way of fine and for the subsequent offence, he is liable to be punished by way of simple imprisonment which may extent to six months. Therefore, the period of limitation is six months as per S. 468(2)(a) of the C.P.C. 3. It is admitted that the date of the commission of the offence is 19-9-1984 and the date of filing of the complaint is 18-4-1985. The complaint is obviously beyond the period of six months. The provisions of S. 470(3), Cr.P.C., were invoke...
K. Venkatiah Naidu Vs. K.P. Karunakaran, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: [1993]199ITR103(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J.1. These four petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, have been filed to quash the proceedings in C. C. Nos. 153 and 156 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. 1), Madras. 2. The petitioner stands charged for the offences under sections 193, 196 and 420, Indian Penal Code, and sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the said Magistrate. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, in respect of the assessments, appeals are pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax and that there is a likelihood of the Commissioner reducing or waiving the penalty and, therefore, the prosecution is premature and the proceedings are liable to the quashed. This contention is unacceptable. Once the Assessing Officer has found commission of an offence, he has every right to prefer a complaint. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to ask for stay of the proceedings till the disposal of the appeals by the Commiss...
R. Jayaprada and ors. Vs. D. Subramaniam, Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1989
Reported in: [1992]196ITR387(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J. 1. These are petitions under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 183 to 186 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. 2. Prosecution have been launched against the petitioners for offences under section 120B read with sections 177, 193, 196 and 420 read with section 511, Indian penal Code, 1860 and under sections 276C (1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The case of the petitioner is that there could be cases against the petitioners only if they have made deliberately false statements and that they cannot be prosecuted for accidental or incidental mistake or errors in any statement made by them. Secondly, it is state that on the vague allegation that the second petitioner is managing the financial affairs of the first petitioner, he has been implicate in these case without any material or substantial evidence of conspiracy. Thirdly, it is alleged that assessments ha...
Perumal Gounder and Another Vs. Pachayappan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad110; I(1990)DMC547
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 117 of 1981, District Munsif's Court, Gingee, who are husband and wife, are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit in O.S. No. 117 of 1981 was instituted by the respondents herein praying for the relief of partition and separate possession of the first respondent's half share in the suit properties and for mesne profits and for recovery of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per mensem in so far as respondents 2 and 3 are concerned, with a charge over the properties of the first appellant herein.2. The case of the respondents is briefly as follows :--The suit properties are the joint family properties of the first appellant and the first respondent. The third respondent is the legally wedded wife of the first appellant and respondents 1 and 2 are the issues born out of that wedlock. Since the second appellant, wife of the first appellant, was afflicted with some incurable disease, with the consent of the second appellant, the first appellant marri...
S. Champalal Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT346(Mad)
ORDER1. This Writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs. Ramani Natarajan advocate for the petitioner, the Court made the following order : The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorari to call for the records relating to the order issued by the Collector of Central Excise dated 25-12-1987 and as modified by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras-17 by its order dated 4-10-1988 and quash the said order. 2. The order of the Collector of Central Excise has merged with the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal. Section 129 of the Customs act states that the Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal to be called the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Section 129A explains the jurisdiction of the said Appellate Tribunal. Section 129B of the Customs Act states that the ...
Ayyasami Gounder and Others Vs. T.S. Palanisami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad237
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the plaintiffs in O. B. No. 1146 of 1980. District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, has been preferred aginst the order passed by the Court below, on an application taken out by the respondent herein, the 2nd defendant in O. S. 1146 of 1980, under Order XVIII. R.3-A. Code of Civil Procedure, for permitting the respondent herein to be examined as a witness. In O. S. No. 1146 of 1980, the petitioners had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and two others from obstructing the user of the suit cart track. In that suit, the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners were examined and the evidence on their side was closed on 12-4-1987. The examination of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent and others was commenced on 17-6-1987 and the examination of the first witness was completed on 17-7-1987. On 28-10-1987, another witness was examined and his examination was also completed on 7-1-1988. A third witnes...
C.P. Srinivas Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: [1991]189ITR378(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J.1. When the miscellaneous petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : '.... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent herein to cause the production of the required documents/records pertaining to Mrs. Padmapriya, the film actress wife of the petitioner herein, and her mother, Mrs. Jayalakshmi Raghavan, wife of V. Venkataraghavan, residing at No. 15, Moosa Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17 which are kept in the custody of the respondent herein before the Principal Family Court at Madras forthwith for the purpose of adjudicating the case pending there in Income-tax Application 170 of 1988 in Original Petition No. 1038 of 1988.' 3. Certain proceedings were pending before the family court which were got transferred from the City Civil Court, Madras, under the Hindu Marriage Act, between the petit...
Thanthi Trust Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Mad)54; [1989]178ITR1(Mad)
S. Mohan, Offg. C.J. 1. These two writ appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother, Justice Nainar Sundaram. Except that the years of assessment involved are different, the point involved is one and the same. 2. The appellant is a trust known as 'Thanthi Trust'. This was created under an instrument of declaration of trust dated March 1, 1954. The purpose of the trust was to found a Tamil daily newspaper called 'Daily Thanthi' as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil-reading public. This was to facilitate the dissemination of views and ventilation of opinion on all matters of public interest through the said newspaper. 3. The appellant is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The trust was claiming exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, from 1955-56 onwards in respect of its income. Though there were several proceedings, ultimately, the claim for exemption came to be granted. After the coming into force of the Income-tax Act, 19...
C.P. Srinivas Vs. Income-tax Officer, Film Ward I, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad284
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. When the miscellaneousPetition came up for hearing, by consent ofboth parties, the main writ petition itself istaken up for the disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: '.....to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent herein to cause the production of the required documents/records pertaining to Mrs. Padmapriya the Film Actress wife of the petitioner herein and her mother Mrs. Jayalakshmi Raghavan, wife of V. Venkataraghavan, reading at No. 15, Moosa Street, T. Nagar, Madras-17 which are kept in the custody of the respondent herein before the Principal Family Court at Madras forthwith for the purpose of adjudicating the case pending therein I.A. 170 of 1988 in O.P. No. 1038 of I988.'3. Certain proceedings were pending before the Family Court, which were got transferred from the City Civil Court, Madras under the Hindu Marriage Act between the petitioner and the third respondent, w...
Ayyasami Gounder and ors. Vs. T.S. Palanisami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ276
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This civil revision petition at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1146 of 1980 District Munsifs Court, Coimbatore, has been preferred against the order passed by the Court below, on an application taken out by the respondent herein, the 2nd defendant in O.S.1146 of 1980, under Order 18, Rule 3-A, Code of Civil Procedure for permitting the respondent herein to be examined as a witness. In O.S. No. 1146 of 1980 the petitioners had prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent and two others from obstructing the user of the suit cart track. In that suit, the witness on behalf of the petitioners were examined and the evidence on their side was closed on 12-4-1987. The examination of the witness on behalf of the respondent and others was commenced and others was commenced on 17-6-1987. On 28-10-1987, another witness was examined and his examination was also completed on 7-1-1988. A third witness was examined on 5-4-1988 and his examin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »