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.
Virudhunagar Co-operative Milk Supply Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Mad)92; [1990]183ITR545(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These two references relating to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 raise a common question of law. The assessee is a co-operative society. Besides carrying on business in the supply of milk it runs a canteen and also raises grass for the use of cattle as part of salvage farm, poultry dairy farm and livestock unit. In respect of the assessment years in question, a claim was made by the assessee for the loss incurred by it in the salvage farm and this was allowed by the Income-tax Officer. Subsequently, while making the assessment for the assessment year 1970-71, the Income-tax Officer came into possession of information that there was an underassessment of the total income of the assessee for the two years in question. Thereupon, the Income-tax Officer initiated action under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ), and brought to tax the loss allowed under salvage farm, after holding that under section 10(27) of the Act, th...
Umrao Bai Vs. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad245
ORDER1. This revision pennon has been directed against R. C. A No 1586 of 1981 on the the of the Appellate Authority. Court of Small Causes. Madras. The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent are the tenants. The petition mentioned building onginally belonged to one Mahabooba Bi and rent used to be collected by her agent named Alla Baksha. The first respondent was the actual tenant and the second respondent was a sub-tenant. The second respondent has been acting as the agent ol the first respondent, claiming to he the head of the family. A registered will was executed by the said Mahabooba Bi on 9-4-1976 under which the petition premises was bequeathed to her daughter by name Fathima Bi. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the same under a sale deed dated 27-6-1979. According to her the first respondent was a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs. 125 - and the second respondent is her uncle and agent of the first respondent. The third respondent occupying a portion of th...
K. Jayaraman Vs. Superintendent of Police, Erode and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ5Mad
ORDERSathiadev, J. 1. Petitioner in WP No. 33 of 1988 is the appellant and two respondents therein are the respondents herein (ranking of parties as in Writ Petition) 2. On petitioner being served with a memo dated 10th December, 1987 issued by the Second respondent, farming charge-sheet against him that he has been receiving prohibition mamool, as illegal gratification during the year 1982, he has preferred the writ petition claiming that, for an occurrence alleged to have taken place in May, 1982, a charge memo served upon him in December, 1987 is without authority of law and that respondents have not given reasons for the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him and that when one Perumal, his colleague, who is said to have disbursed the mamool to him having been acquitted in the proceedings initiated against him earlier in point of time and if the disciplinary proceeding based on such a charge memo is to be proceeded with petitioner would be greatly prejudiced : and ...
Lingam Vs. R. Sekhar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ352
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The lorry-owner, made liable by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to answer in full the Award, exonerating his insurer, has filed the present appeal contending that the liability ought to have been fastened on his insurer alone.2. Facts as per the claim briefly are: On 21.7.1979 the first respondent was travelling in a lorry No. MDN. 5868 belonging to the appellant, accompanying a load of fertiliser belonging to his employer, Kunjakshan. The lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It capsized, throwing the first respondent outside, resulting in serious injuries to him. He, therefore, filed M.C.O.P. No. 169 of 1980 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act for short) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 20,000.3. The second respondent resisted the claim contending that the vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner and also contending that the ...
Kaliyammal and ors. Vs. Raghurama Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad286
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. The questions in all these matters referred to this Full Bench are : --(i) Whether the definition of 'debtor' in Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1972,50 of 1982 and 13 of 1980 would include his heirs, legal representatives and assigns? and (ii) are not the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of a debtor governed by Mohammedan law entitled to claim the benefits under the Acts.2. The facts which lead to this Reference in all these cases can be briefly, stated as follows : We find from the order of reference in all these cases that a Division Bench of this Court in Komalambal v. Neelavaihi Ammal ((987) 100 MLW 1059 held that the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor are not entitled to claim the benefits of the TamiI Nadu Act 13 of 1980. It was contended that in the said Division Bench case, except three Judgments of learned single Judges in Lakshmiammal v. Sundaramurthi : (1984)2MLJ47 , Sara Nisha v. Raju : (1984)2MLJ152 and Pattammal v. Ponnusami Udayar (198...
T.A. Chidambaram Vs. the University of Madras by Its Registrar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ302
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The petitioner in W.P.Nos. 6029 and 6108 of 1987 is the appellant in W.A.Nos. 664 and 665 of 1988 and respondents 1 to 5 therein, are the respondents here.2. The petitioner (parties ranked as in the writ petitions) filed W.P. No. 6029 of 1987 for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the third respondent as Reader in the Department of Criminology of the University of Madras, the first respondent here and W.P. No. 6108 of 1987 for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of appointment. Pending the above writ petitions, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 8783 of 1987 in W.P. No. 6108 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from confirming the third respondent in the above post and also filed W.M.P. No. 8685 of 1987 in W.P. No. 6029 of 1987 for an injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 from assigning any research students to the third respondent. Learned Judge dismissed W.M.P.Nos. 8665 and 8783 of 1987 in view of the fact that...
N. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Registrar, University of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ88
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against an order of Bakthavatsalam, J. in W.P.No. 8807 of 1988 dated 1.12.88 declining to issue a writ certiorarified mandamus to quash the resolution of the Syndicate, Madras University, dated 30.6.1988 and confirmed again in its resolution dated 23.7.1988. Brief facts relating to the matter are as under.2. The Second respondent after serving the University for nearly 30 years was to retire on 30.6.1988. On 9.5.1988, the second respondent requested the Vice Chancellor of the University to grant him extension for two or three years to enable him to complete his Research work in Indian Private International Law and Ancient Hindu Jurisprudence which are pending completion. Before the said request was placed before the Syndicate and considered by it, the first respondent by communication dated 29.6.1988 informed the appellant as follows:Sub - In-charge for the department of Legal Studies, University of Madras, Madras - Reg.I am, by dir...
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., Represented by Its Secretary Vs. Spe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ533
ORDERRatnam, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions Under Section 115, C.P.C. have been preferred by M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'N.L.C' for short)questioning the correctness of the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virdhachalam dismissing the applications filed by it under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Section 50(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that it should be impleaded as party second respondent, in addition to the Referring Officer, who is the first respondent, in a batch of references Under Section 18 of the Act, now pending before the Sub Court, Virudhachalam at the instance of numerous claimants whose lands have been acquired.2. For purposes of expansion of its productive programmes, N.L.C. requested the state of Tamil Nadu to acquire about 5,200 and odd acres of land and it is not now in dispute that a vast extent of land belonging to the respondents herein had been acquire...
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ704
ORDER1. Crl.M.P. No. 11117 of 1998 has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seeking setting aside of the order of the Court of Session, Madras, releasing the respondent M. K. S. Abu Bucker, on bail in Crl.M.P. No. 6945 of 1988 on his file. 2. The grounds put forth for seeking such a direction are that the Sessions Court had not taken into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence the stage of investigation and the interests of the Society as against the right of the individual, and that free and fair investigation will be polluted by outside influence by the presence of the respondent, who is an influential person and who has already been involved in smuggling activities, if he is allowed to remain at large. 3. Crl.M.P. No. 254 of 1989 has filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P. No. 11117 of 1988 to call for the records relating to his arrest and quash the order of arrest made by the respon...
M.K. Chubby Raj Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ474Mad
ORDERS. Mohan, Offg. C.J.1. The short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows : 2. The first respondent-Bank was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955). The said Act came into force on 1st July 1955. According to sub-section (3) of Section of 4 the said Act the service conditions of the employees of the Imperial Bank of India were to be the same as on 1st July 1955. It was on that date the Imperial Bank of India was taken over by the State Bank of India. The terms and conditions of service were duly altered by the State Bank of India. The appellant joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as Law Officer on a contractual basis on terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment dated 24th October 1977. On 2nd February 1978 an order of appointment was issued in and by which he was appointed for a period of three years with option to the Bank to absorb him as a Law Officer on long term basis on satisfactory completion of the initial ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »