Chennai Court March 1990 Judgments
Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Mad)35; [1992]196ITR674(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The prayers in the writ petitions are similar. To understand what exactly the petitioners want, it is sufficient if we extract one of the prayers, which is as follows : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this honourable court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or another appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding further in any manner against the petitioner pursuant to the searches made on November 20, 1987, and November 27, 1987, of the premises of the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit and proper.' 2. The searches referred to in the prayers in the writ petitions are under section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The impeachment of the searches is on the ground that the ingredients under those provisions or, in other words, the conditions prece...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Chockalinga Nadar Vs. the Government of India, and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad83
ORDER1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the case from the file of the first respondentdated6-3-1974and made in letter No.29/1/ Genl/73 FF.VIII and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to pay pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 from December, 1974 till the lifetime of the petitioner.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he had joined the freedom struggle and he participated in the 'Quit India Movement' in 1942. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and was confined in Aliepuram Camp Jail, Bellari. The first respondent evolved a scheme known as 'Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, which provides for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters, their families if they are no more alive and to family of martyrs. The minimum pension payable to...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.M. Haneefa and Others Vs. the Forest Ranger, Shencotta Range
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ712
ORDER1. This Criminal revision petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC. No : 3 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shencottah under the following circumstances.2. Petitioners 1 to 10 are the owners of the estate called 'Jemini Estate' situate at Meykkariai Village Shencottah Taluk, Tirunelveli District comprised in S. Nos. 12/1, 12/2, 13/1 and 15/2 measuring an extent of 208-064 hectares, There are large number of trees in the aforesaid survey numbers. According to the Petitioners, the aforesaid survey numbers among other lands in the village have been notified as hill area under S. 1(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hill Areas Preservation of Trees Act, 1955. The 11th Petitioner is the power agent of P.Ws. 1 to 10 Petitioners 12 and 13 are watchmen of the estate.3. The Forest Ranger, Shencottah Range who is the respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Shencottah against the Petitioners for an a...
Tag this Judgment!Poosarilar Ekambaram Pillai Vs. Visalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad203
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India relating to the election of the President of Omandur Panchayat in Lalgudi taluk.2. The said election took place on 23-2-1986 and the revision petitioner herein and seven others contested the same. The first respondent herein was duly declared elected as President of Omandur Panchayat having secured 366 votes and the petitioner before me secured 294 votes.3. The election of the first respondent in the said election was challenged by the petitioner herein by way of an election petition before the Election Tribunal (District Munsif, Thuraiyur), in O.P. No. 7 of 1986.Against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 5-8-1987, the first respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 3262/ 87 before this Court. In the said civil revision petition, Mohan, J. (as he then was) felt that one important question to be decided in this case is whether the first respondent herein is a citizen of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Sankar and Others Etc. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2355
ORDER1. These revisions have been filed by the accused, who have been convicted by the trial Court for an offence under S. 36-A read with S. 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Act 5 of 1982) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also convicted for an offence under section 21(d) and (f) of the same Act, with no separate sentence, challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioners was that on 5-10-1982, they trespassed into the Manmalai Reserve Forest in Theettukkal Range, removed forest produce namely sandalwood and each petitioner was found to be in possession of sandalwood in excess of 5 kg. without a valid licence for such possession. 3. On 5-10-1982, P.W. 1 the Forest Ranger, on information, headed a mobile party to prevent sandalwood removal. At 5.30 p.m., the petitioners and 6 others, who were tried along with the petitioners, were found climbing down inside the forest area with sandalwood billets on their h...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthi Vs. Ramaswami and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2442
1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant in a case instituted on her complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 494 and 495 read with 109, I.P.C. and is directed against the acquittal of the respondents under section 248(1), Cr.P.C. by the trial Court on the ground that the complainant has failed to produce the witness for further cross-examination under Section Section 246(4), Cr.P.C. and also on the ground that the complainant herself was absent on the day fixed for such further cross-examination. 2. The appellant filed the case against the respondents and under Section 244, Cr.P.C. she had examined herself and another witness. On the basis of the evidence of these two witnesses, the trial Court had framed charges under section 246(1), Cr.P.C. against the respondents for offences under sections 494 and 495 read with 109, I.P.C., P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not been cross-examined when they were examined under section 244, Cr.P.C. The respondents decided to cross-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. and F. Harvey Ltd., Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR343(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Department under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'),in which the question referred for our consideration is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that, but for the fact that the original assessment had adopted a loss of Rs. 13,028 under the head 'Capital gains', the actual loss that would have qualified for set off would have been Rs. 13,99,887.' 2. The assessee is a public limited company. The accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1968-69 under consideration ended on April 5, 1968. The original assessment in this case was completed on October 22, 1968. In making the original assessment on October 22, 1968, the Income-tax Officer computed the loss under the head 'Capital gains' as under : Rs.Capital gains are returned: 2,83,596Less: Previous year's loss set off: 2,96,624--------Balance loss to be ca...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jothirani Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR194]
S. Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioner got inducted into the second respondent concern as an apprentice. The terms of employment of apprentice like the petitioner are the subject-matter of settlement under Sec. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner does not in any manner impeach the said settlement. As per the terms of the settlement, on the completion of apprenticeship the petitioner cannot insist for continuation of the employment. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute over his non-employment by the second respondent and that was declined to be referred for adjudication by the impugned order of the first respondent. The relevant portion of the impugned order runs as follows : 'It is reported that the worker was appointed as an apprentice and that after the completion of the training has no right to claim employment. Hence, the Government considered that there is no case to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.' 2. The first respondent in substance ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alamelu Vs. the Superintending Engineer, South Arcot Electricity Sy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ96Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 11462 of 1985 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. We are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition for the sake of convenience. The petitioner was initially appointed by the Superintending Engineer, South Arcot Electricity System (South), Villupuram, to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1970. Her service were regularised and subsequently in 1980 she was promoted as an Assistant. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person in that she does not have her left forearm. She claims that she could not secure life partner on account of her physical handicap and sympathy flowed from her brother-in-law, namely, her younger sister's husband and he took her in marriage even though his marriage with the petitioner's younger sister was subsisting. This happened in the year 1973. On 1st July, 1985 a charge mem...
Tag this Judgment!Poosariar Ekambaram Pillai Vs. Visalakshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ90
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relating to the election of the President of Omandur Panchayat in Lalgudi taluk.2. The said election took place on 23.2.1986 and the revision petitioner herein and seven others contested the same. The first respondent herein was duly declared elected as President of Omandur Panchayat having secured 366 votes and the petitioner before me secured 294 votes.3. The election of the first respondent in the said election was challenged by the petitioner herein by way of an election petition before the Election Tribunal (District Munsif, Thuraiyur), in O.P. No. 7 of 1986. Against the order of the Election Tribunal dated 5.8.1987, the first respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3262/87 before this Court. In the said Civil Revision Petition Mohan, J. (as he then was) felt that an important question to be decided in this case is whether the first respondent herein is a citizen of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »