Chennai Court April 1990 Judgments
Meenakshi College for Women Represented by Its Principal, K.S. Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ231
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Meenakshi College for Women represented by its Principal has filed this Writ petition for issue of a mandamus directing the University of Madras, the first respondent herein, to confer autonomous status for the petitioner college, based on the report of the Second Inspection Commission headed by Justice P. Venugopal (Retd., for a period of five years from the current academic year 1989-90 after getting the concurrence of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, respondents 2 and 3 herein.2. The petitioner college was started in the year 1975-76 and is affiliated to the first respondent University. At present, it is having nine under-graduate courses and seven post-graduate courses plus M.C.A. Course. It has been adopting the curriculum issued by the University and following the University Syllabus. By a communication dated 21-3-1989, the University informed the petitioner of the launching of a programme of 'autonomous Colleges' and i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srikrishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: [1992]198ITR341(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested and it carries on the business of manufacturing tiles and other clay products from 1946 onwards. For the assessment year 1971-72, though there was a loss from business, there was unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years to be carried forward and long-term capital gains had also to be computed and that resulted in a total income of Rs. 22,33,145. Likewise, in respect of the assessment year 1973-74, though there was a loss in the business of manufacturing tiles, etc., on the computation of long-term capital gains, it resulted in a high total income of Rs. 32,94,810. In respect of the assessment year 1971-72, the distributable surplus after deduction of tax was Rs. 8,93,269 and the assessee was liable to distribute 90 per sent, of the surplus as dividend to is shareholders as required by section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), read with section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Ravichandran and ors. Vs. Subbarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ349
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 69 of 1977. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The suit is for partition and separate possession of 3/4th shares in all the A and B schedule properties for future profits and for costs of the suit.2. The case of the plaintiffs is as under: The plaintiffs are the sons of the first defendant. The first defendant and his brothers Rajamannar and Gopalakrishnan who are not parties in the suit are the sons of one Govindasamy Chettiar. The said Govindasamy Chettiar was running a javuli business by manufacturing and sale of silk sarees. The manufacture and sale of silk sarees is their ancestral family business, otherwise it is known as kulachara trade. Govindasamy Chettiar died on 14.10.1964 leaving a widow by name Seethalakshmi, three sons and three daughters. The sons as one branch and the other members of the family as another branch entered into a registered partition on 30.1.196...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Krishnaswamy (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Devaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ28
ORDERA. Abdul Hadi, J.1. C.M.P. No. 4140 of 1990 prays to bring on record the wife and children of the deceased petitioner - tenant in this C.R.P. as his legal representatives.2. The C.R.P. is under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act', and the deceased petitioner therein died on 4.6.1988. But, this C.M.P. has been filed only on 2.9.1988.3. Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 provides that application for making the legal representatives of the deceased person, party to a proceeding under the Act, shall be preferred within one month from the date of death of the person concerned. Since there is a delay of 60 days in filing the said L.R. Petition, C.M.P. No. 4139 of 1990 has been filed to condone the said delay.4. Very recently in the decision reported in Arya Vysia Samajam v. Murugesa Mudaliar 1990 T.L.N.J. 2 a Bench of this Court has held that even to a L.R. Petition under the Act, Section 5 of ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arumugam Vs. the Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ340
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The prayer in the' writ petition is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Resolution of the Council of the Paramakudi Municipality, Ramnad District in Resolution No.2466, dated 7-3-1990 and consequently for directing the Commissioner of the Municipality-1st respondent to issue proceedings extending the lease in respect of right to collect fee from the weekly shandy (Public Market) Paramakudi, under the control of the 1st respondent beyond the period 30-3-1990 i.e. for the period 1990-91.2. The petitioner was the licensee with regard to collection of fees from the Municipal shandy. According to him, he had been the licensee for over a period of fifteen years. For the period 1989-90, he was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,25,002. His bid was accepted by the Municipal Council and he was granted licence for the period from 1-4-1989 to 30-3-1990. For the subsequent period i.e. 1990-91, he offered to pay an increased fee at Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Kuppuswamy Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad17
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Monday, the 26th and Friday, the 30th days of March, 1990 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dt. 21-7-1981 and made herein, and the counter-affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in relevant to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the respondents, to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. O. V. Bala-swami. Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. Fathimanathan, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, the Court made the following order :--The writ petitioner claims to be a dealer in a particular wooden tumbler called 'Durka Ayurveda Tumbler' which is said to be marketed by one Apsara Agencies at Bangalore. On 25-6-1981, the petitioner gave an advertisement in a Tamil Weekly called 'Kalkandu' wherei...
Tag this Judgment!M. Vanaja Vs. Commissioner of Police, Madras and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ218
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by one Mrs. M. Vanaja, mother of the detenu by name Ravi alias Dorai alias Poonaikannan Ravi, for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of detention passed against her son on 22-8-1989 and set him at liberty.2. The impugned order was passed by the first respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) on 22-8-1989 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order was passed after the detenu came to the adverse notice of the detaining authority as a goonda in view of the adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention and was detained on the basis of the ground c...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balaraman Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ166
1. The Appellant was tried in S.C. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Madras, under three heads of charges. The first charge was for an offence under Section 452, I.P.C., on the allegation that on 25-4-1986 between 9 and 10 A.M., when P.W. 1 Frederick Kanakaraj, the District Munsif, Ponneri, was travelling in an electric train from Madras Central to reach his work spot, on the way at Ennore Railway Station, the appellant due to prior enmity trespassed into the first class compartment, where P.W. 1, was seated, after having made preparation to attack him. The second charge was framed for an offence under Section 307, I.P.C. alleging that during the course of the same transaction, the appellant attacked P.W. 1, with a koduval knife by chasing the victim, who got down from the first class compartment No. 12252 and got into a second class compartment, to escape from the wrath of the appellant. The third charge was framed for an offence under Section 333, I.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. S. Pannadevi Vs. Govt. of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(32)ECC1; 1991(52)ELT347(Mad)
ORDER1. The point involved in all these writ petitions relates to the validity of the Notification No. 73/81-C.E., dated 25-3-1981, being a notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 amending an earlier Notification 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 and therefore, I am passing a common order in the above writ petitions.2. I will set out the facts in writ petition No. 1940 of 1981 : The petitioner is a manufacturer of patent or proprietary medicines. The petitioner does not own a factory of her own for manufacture. She has obtained a licence under the Drugs Act known as 'loan licence' enabling her to use the factory premises of another factory owner. Actually, the petitioner is using the factory of M/s. Medhopharm at Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar, Madras-6. It is stated that there are other loan licensees attached to the said factory. The produce manufactured by the petitioner falls under Tariff Item 14-E of Schedule I to the Central Excise Act which attracts ad va...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC233; 1990(48)ELT321(Mad)
ORDERJ. Kanakaraj, J.1. This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent made in C.No. V/15A/3/65/79 dated 20-5-1981. Though the petitioner has narrated the sequence of events from 1977 onwards, I am of the opinion that it is sufficient to set out the facts from 6-10-1979, the date of the show-cause notice issued in C.No. V/15A/3/65/77. In and by the said show-cause notice, the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner-company should not take out a licence under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the manufacture of resin master falling under Tariff Item 15A and get a Classification list/Price list approved before effecting further clearance. In the show-cause notice, it is stated that the petitioner-company have been manufacturing resin master classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(i) of Central Excise Tariff Schedule and have been using the same in the manufacture of dipping solu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »