Chennai Court December 1990 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.
K.K. Subramania Sah Vs. A. Sampath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1990
Reported in: (1991)351MLJ1
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent herein is the tenant in respect of the petition premises situate at No.29, East Koovjam River Road, Chintadripet, Madras-2. The petition premises is residential one and the monthly rent is Rs. 17. According to the landlord the petition premises is aged more than 70 years and it is in a dilapidated condition. The engineer who inspected the premises advised the landlord to carry out extensive repairs. Hence he filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 336 of 1980 on the ground of requiring the petitioner premises for repair. Again on engineer's advice the landlord withdrew the eviction petition H.R.C.O.P. N0. 336 of 1980 and filed a fresh petition H.R.C.O.P. No. 4058 of 1980 on the ground of demolition and reconstruction as contemplated unde...
C. Soosai Nayagam Vs. Pushpa Ritha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC604
Janarthanam, J.1. The first respondent for herself and on behalf of her minor children, respondents 2 to 5, filed a petition Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 1/84, Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kuzhithurai, claiming maintenance from the petitioner on the ground that because of unbearable cruelty meted out to her, she was unable to live in the matrimonial abode and on and from 16.9.1979 she was living with her mother along with her children. The petitioner/husband resisted the petition.2. The trial Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, record a finding that the first respondent was entitled to live separately and consequentely awarded maintenance of Rs. 100/- to the first respondents and Rs. 75/- to each of respondents 2 to 5, every month on and from 25-2-1984, the date of petition. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred Cri. Revision petition No. 22 of 1986 before the Court of Session, Kanyakumary at Nagercoil. Learned Sessions Judge, on conside...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Central Government
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(34)ECC183
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in STC (EC) No. 8 of 1988 on the file of the Presiding Officer (Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act), Thanjavur. 2. Accused 1, a company going by the name M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd, situate at Nellikuppam South Arcot District is manufacturing sugar and other products. During the year 1984-85 accused 2 and 3, then General Manager and acting Factory Process Superintendent, were in charge of and responsible to the conduct of the business of accused-1-company. 3. One B. Karunamoorthy, inspecting Officer (Sugar) of the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, (Department of Food) inspected the factory premises on 18.7.1985 and collected samples of sugar certified to be truly representative samples from the stocks in the factory godowns of 1984-85 season's production, after duly complying with all formalities. Of these samples collected, one such sample was forwarded to the National Sugar Institute, Kan...
S.E.A. Raja Vs. M.R. Lakshminarasimha Gupta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)416MLJ1
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Karur, in I.A. No. 203 of 1987 in H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1987, dated 6.11.1987.2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision petition are as under:Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed H.R.G.O.P. No. 8 of 1987 against the petitioner herein for an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and Owner's occupation. The petitioner herein, while opposing the eviction petition, inter alia has stated in his counter that his father was the original tenant of the suit premises, that after his death, his mother became the tenant, and after the death of the mother, himself and his four brothers have become tenants and, therefore in the absence of his four brothers, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper parties. In order to get over the above technical objection, the respo...
Chinnadurai Nadar Vs. the Assistant Health Officer, Circle-iv, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2148
ORDER1. The Assistant Health Officer, Circle IV, Corpn. of Madras, Madras-3 - the respondent herein inspected M/s. Kumaran Theatre, Kolathur, Madras-99 on 22-8-1987. The proprietor of the said theatre is one Chinnadurai Nadar, the petitioner herein. The respondent launched a prosecution by filing a complaint against the petitioner before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras for the his omission to comply with the provisions of Rule 64 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'), who took it on file as N.M.S.T.C. No. 43 of 1988. 2. On receipt of process, the petitioner came forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following points for consideration :- (1) Though the respondent is designated as an Inspecting Authority among other personnel specified in Rule 8 of the Rules, yet he is not empowered to launch ...
Sivasamy Vs. Sub Inspector, Kinathur Kadavu, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2041
ORDER1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu, Pollachi taluk the respondent herein registered a case in Crime No. 208/87 for the alleged offences u/Ss. 457 and 380, IPC against the petitioner-accused on the ground that on 30-11-1987/1-12-1987 at 1 a.m. he entered into the residence of one Mappillai Gounder and committed theft of 15 Kgms. of rice valued about Rs. 75/-. 2. After completing the formalities of the investigation, he laid the final report under S. 173(2), Crl. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi which was taken on file as C.C. No. 44 of 1988. 3. Records were stated to have been furnished to the accused. The accused did not engage any Counsel of his choice and he was stated to have pleaded guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. 4. Consequently, learned Magistrate found him guilty u/Ss. 457 and 380, IPC convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months for each of the offences with a direction that the sentence...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chitram and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)91CTR(Mad)7; [1991]191ITR96(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company. During the accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 the assessee manufactured gears and used them in carrying on its business of production and sale of cranes and winches, consisting mostly and essentially of the gears manufactured by it. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') admissible to a priority industry, higher development rebate and depreciation on the motor cars stated to have been used exclusively for business purposes. The Income-tax Officer took the view that as cranes and winches are not included in Schedule VI, relief under section 80-I of the Act cannot be given. The Income-tax Officer also negatived the claim of the assessee for higher development rebate on the ground that the machinery installed by the assessee for the purpose of engaging itself in the business of man...
Brother John Antony Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1352
ORDER1. The petitioner in all these petitions is one and the same and he is the Sub-Warden of the Boarding Home attached to St. Mary's Higher Secondary School Tuticorin. 2. During the period from September, 1986 to 16th February, 1987, an impression was gaining momentum in the said School that he voluntarily had carnal intercourse against the orders of nature with the inmates of the Boarding Home. 3. One M. Mohan was studying in the VIX Standard in the School. He was an inmate of the Boarding Home. His brother is by name M. Thiagarajan. He was stated to have informed his brother about the perverted sexual assaults of the Sub-Warden on the inmates of the Home, inclusive of himself. 4. Consequently, on 21-2-1987 the said Thiagarajan lodged a report before the Sub-Inspector of Police Tuticorin South Police Station - the respondent herein about such illegal activities being committed with impunity. He further revealed in the report that despite complaints having been made to all concerned ...
M/S Meenakshi Industries Singanallur Coimbatore and Another Vs. G. Gur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2115
ORDER1. The petitioners and the respondent are the same in all these petitions. The question to be decided is also the same. Hence all these are disposed of by a common order. 2. These petitions are filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court u/S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C. Nos. 309 to 344 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. 3. The Circumstances that led up to the filing of all these petitions may succinctly be stated : Petitioner No. 1 is M/s. Meenakshi Industries, situate at No. 1, Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore-041005. Petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Partner. Petitioner No. 1 concern is an establishment coming within the meaning of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952 for short 'the Act') and the Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 (for short 'the Scheme'). 4. Under paragraphs 7...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S. Ram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1990
Reported in: [1992]197ITR262(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and not as a reserve for finding out the break-up of the shares held by the assessee in certain companies ?' 2. With reference to the same assessee, for a different assessment year, the same question came to be considered in the decision in CWT v. S. Ram : [1984]147ITR278(Mad) and it was held that, where a gratuity provision is based on a scientific or actuarial valuation and it truly reflects the discounted present value of the value of the assessee's future liability, such a provision must be deducted in arriving at the value of the shares of the company fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »