Chennai Court October 1990 Judgments
M.S. Doraisami Iyer Vs. A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad275; (1991)IMLJ49
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against an order dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant against an order dismissing his application under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. for excluding the property in question from the execution proceedings inititated against the same by the first respondent herein.2. The short facts which are necessary tounderstand the claim made by the appellant are these: The appellant filed a suit, O.S. No. 127 of 1966 against the second respondent for recovery of Rs. 17,512.67 and obtained a decree. The second respondent filed an appeal in this Court, A.S. 377 of 1967. When the appeal was pending an order was made by this Court in an application for stay filed by the second respondent directing him to furnish security in the shape of immovable property for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as condition for stay. The second respondent filed an application in the trial Court for accepting the property in question as security. He filed a draft security bond on 9-11-196...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) M.S. Dhowani Vs. J. Ranganathan Second Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR690(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the same in both the petitions, and the questions raised are also common. Hence, both the petitions are disposed of together by a common order. The petitioner is being prosecuted in C. C. No. 152 of 1984, on the file of the erstwhile Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, at the instance of the Second Income-tax Officer, City Circle-V, Madras, for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 193 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This prosecution relates to the assessment year 1982-83. 2. In C. C. No. 153 of 1984, on the file of the same Magistrate, the petitioner is being prosecuted for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 193 and 177 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This prosecution relates to the assessment year 1983-84. 3. In...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal Singh Vs. the Management of Central Institute of Plastic Engine ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)358MLJ1
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.9.1987 made in Writ Petition No. 5270 of 1987 disposed of along with Writ Petition No. 5276 of 1987, whereunder the writ petition came to be dismissed sustaining the preliminary objections raised by the first respondent with reference to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the first respondent society cannot come within the ambit of 'other authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, without any further investigation of the grievance made on merits.2. Having regard to the limited nature of the issue under consideration before us, it is not necessary for us to devolve in detail of the grievance in the Writ Petition No. 5270 of 1987 against which the above writ appeal has been filed, was filed by the appellant before us praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Order No. Dir/87-87/-05, dated 7.5.1987 issued by the first respond...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Ramakrishnan and Brothers and ors. Vs. Thammaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ30
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The second respondent and the legal representatives of the first respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 204 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nilgiris, are the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this revision by the nomenclature given to them in the Rent Control Original Petition.2. The petitioner filed R.CO.P.No.204 of 1977 against the petitioner foreviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for evicting the respondents from the petition mentioned premises on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for own use and occupation. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner became the owner of the petition mentioned premises by virtue of the sale deed dated 30.5.1977 ex...
Tag this Judgment!Vensuer Medical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC350
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition relates to the seizure of articles from the petitioner's premises on 29-11-1982 and the action sought to be taken by the respondents. In W.M.P. Nos. 557 and 4162 of 1983, dated 8-4-1983, this Court directed the respondents to complete the investigation and pass final orders. Accordingly on 16-4-1984 final orders had been passed and seems that the petitioner had also filed an appeal. Under those circumstances the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed2. It is open to the petitioner to urge before the appellate authorities all grounds which are available to them including the ground taken in writ petition. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chandrasekar. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1990
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC100
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. The petitioner was tried in C.C. No. 176 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri for the following offences: (1) Section 304-A Indian Penal Code (two counts); (2) Section 337 Indian Penal Code and (3) Section 279 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months of the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 279, I.P.C. The aggrieved petitioner preferred C.A. No. 106 of 1984 before the Court of Session, Dharampuri at Krishanagiri. The learned Appellate Judge concurring with the findings rendered by the trial magistrate dismissed the appeal.2. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the correctness of the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed.3. Mr., T. Munirathina Naidu, lear...
Tag this Judgment!C. Laxmi Chand and L. Hemraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1647
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The petitioners in W.P. No. 9713 of 1988 are the appellants herein and the respondents there, are respondents I to 4 herein, the 5th respondent having been impleaded as a party in this appeal. 2. The appellants filed the above writ petition for the following prayer :- i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the 2nd respondent to submit his enquiry report in respect of C. No. 1059/4254/F1/86 dated 10-7-1986 before this Hon'ble Court with a copy thereof to the petitioners; ii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon respondent No. 3 herein to produce the entire original record pertaining to C. No. 1059/4254/F1/86 dated 10-7-86 before this Hon'ble Court; iii. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the third respondent to produce the entire original record pertaining to X-Crime No. 282 of 1986 before this Hon'ble Court and to grant copies of documents therein to the petitioners; iv. issue an appropriate...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharath Auto Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Mad)177; [1991]188ITR477(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee was a partnership firm, which consisted of two partners and was constituted under a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1972. Under a codicil dated April 1, 1973, clause 9 was introduced into the deed of partnership to the effect that from April 1, 1972 in the event of dissolution of the firm, the partners agreed that the assets of the firm, including are stock on hand, shall be valued at book value and divided. The partnership business was carried on at two places under the name and styled of 'Bharat Auto Stores' and 'Balaji Automobiles', and by a deed of dissolution, the partnership was dissolved on March 31, 1974. Subsequent to the dissolution, one of the partners continued the business under the name and style of 'Bharat Auto Stores', while the other partner took over the business under the name and style of 'Balaji Automobiles'. For the assessment year 1974-75 (accounting period ending on march 31, 1974) in accordance with the prior practice and clause 19 ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramaswamy Mudaliar. (Decd. by Legal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)90CTR(Mad)36; [1992]196ITR939(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. On March 14, 1962, the assessee purchased a race horse (mare) 'High Flight' for Rs. 15,000, with a view to run it in races. However, the horse did not participate in any of the races; but instead was sent to the stud-farm. While in the stud-farm, the mare gave birth to a colt and a filly. On July 1, 1966, the assessee sold the mare and the colt and the filly for Rs. 50,000. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68, the Income-tax Officer brought to tax as capital gains, the difference between the sale price of Rs. 50,000 and the cost of acquisition of the mare at Rs. 15,000, i.e., Rs. 35,000. Although the appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was originally dismissed, on further appeal to the Tribunal, it remitted the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that though there was no cost of acquisition for the colt a...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Rm. Muthappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]189ITR760(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. These tax case references arise out of the estate duty assessment of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar, who died on February 23, 1964 at Melasivapuri. I the estate duty account filed by the son of the deceased, the accountable person, it was claimed that the deceased was domiciled in Malaya and, therefore, the foreign movable properties valued at Rs. 3,65,700, could not be included in the dutiable estate. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty rejected the claim so made by the accountable person, holding that the deceased had not abandoned the domicile of origin with a view to acquire a domicil of choice in Malaya. In that view, the value of the foreign movables, was also included in the value of the estate that passed on the death of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar. On appeal by the accountable person before the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, it was found that the deceased had manifested an intention to continue his domicil of origin and in that view, the order of the Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »