Chennai Court January 1991 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.
Mohamed Ibrahim and Others Vs. Chellammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad309; (1991)IMLJ334
ORDER1. No doubt the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct in law, as the appeal filed by the respondent herein before the Subordinate Judge was a stillborn one as the defendant in the suit was dead by the time the appeal was filed. In such cases, Order XXII, C.P.C. will not apply. There is no question of bringing on record their legal representatives as there was novalid appeal. The remedy of the appellant is to get the cause title amended, if it is within time to file the appeal against the legal representatives. If it is out of time, the remedy is to apply for condonation or delay in filing the appeal against the legal representatives.2. In this case, an application to bring on record the legal representatives was filed by the respondents herein, as if the defendant was alive at the time of filing of the appeal. The Court below has accepted the explanation given by the respondent that she was not in town at the time of filing the appeal. According to her, she h...
Muniandi Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2954
1. The appellant, who is the accused in S.C. No. 85 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge, Anna District at Dindigul, stands convicted for the offence under S. 304, Part (1) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo for Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. 2. The brief facts leading to the filling of this appeal are : The accused is a resident of Sedapatti village, which lies within the jurisdiction of Sembatti Police Station. Poongodi, since deceased was no one-else than his younger sister. He is having another sister by name Mookkayee P.W. 3. The marriage of P.W. 3 took place about 12 year prior to the day of occurrence, which happened on 29-3-1985. She was given in marriage to one Alagumalai. Tow off-springs, One male, and female came into being as a result of that lawful wedlock. During the substance of the marriage P.W. 3 took a fancy for her uncle's son, Palaniappen and her intimacy with him developed day-in-and day-out even during her matrimonial life, which resulted in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Annapurani Veerappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR426(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. These tax case references relate to the same assessee, though for different assessment years and they are, therefore, dealt with together. The assessee is a money-lender and followed the mercantile system of accounting. She had advanced loans on mortgages. One such loan was advanced to one K. N. Krishnasami on a simple mortgage of agricultural lands of extent of 96 odd acres and the share of interest of the debtor in the firm, Sriram Bus Service. She had also advanced monies to one N. Chockalingam Chettiar on equitable mortgage. From the account copy extracts produced by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, it is seen that, for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70, the assessee had debited the interest accruing on the mortgages as per the system of accounting followed by her and offered the accrued interest for assessment. For the assessment year 1970-71 up to 1973-74, the assessee did not credit any interest. However, in the course of the assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.M. Maruthai Naidu and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)93CTR(Mad)265; [1991]192ITR666(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. It came into being under the terms of an instrument of partnership dated August 15, 1949 (annexure 'H' to the stated case), and its partners were one R M Maruthai Naidu and his three sons. The firm was originally carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of scented tobacco and cigars under the name and style of M/s. R. M. Maruthai Naidu and Sons. Some time thereafter the firm purchased buses and carried on transport business under the name and style of Bagavathi Transport, as could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 1952-53 (annexure 'J' to the stated case), From annexure 'L' to the stated case, it is seen that, in the accounts of the firm relating to cigar business, a folio had been set apart for Bagavathi Transport and, in the accounting period 1951-52, amounts from the cigar business had been utilised for purposes of the transport business. Some time in 1967, a fresh deed of partnership was entered into bet...
Late C.S. Ramachary Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)99; [1991]189ITR8(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee, an individual, held shares in certain companies which were not quoted in the stock exchange. In determining the value of the shares so held by the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 as provided under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and the Rules thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and 'Rules' respectively), the Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that the depreciation on the assets as shown in the balance-sheets of the companies should be taken into account and not the depreciation under the Income-tax Rules for arriving at the value of the shares. On that basis, the Wealth-tax officer determined the value of the shares for the purpose of assessment and completed the assessment accordingly. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in a brief order, accepting the stand of the assessee, held that, while computing the value of the shares under Rule 1D of the Rules, short depreciation provided for should be excluded the refixed the value of th...
Vijaya Kumar Garg, Partner of Agarwal Loomtex Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC163; 1992(58)ELT416(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. Against an order of adjudication passed by the Collector of Customs, Madurai dated 25-9-1990, instead of preferring an appeal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 17225 of 1990. The Writ Petition was ordered on 9-11-1990. The learned Single Judge, following an earlier judgment of another learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 1990 directed that the goods should be released on payment of the penalty imposed in cash and on furnishing bank guarantee for the redemption fine. The learned single Judge also held that in all other respects the appellant had the liberty to file an appeal and seek redress of his grievances. An indulgence was shown, however, that in the event the goods are released on payment of the penalty in cash and on furnishing of a bank guarantee for the redemption fine, the predeposit necessary for filing an appeal shall be dispensed with. Subsequently it appears that the writ petition and a batch of other writ petitions were posted f...
Vijay Kumar Garg, Partner of Agarwal Loomtex Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: 1994(51)LC489(Madras)
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.1. Against an order of adjudication passed by the Collector of Customs, Madurai dated 25.9.1990, instead of preferring an appeal, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 17225 of 1990. The Writ Petition was ordered on 9.11.1990. The learned Single Judge, following an earlier judgment of another learned single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 14369 of 1990 directed that the goods should be released on payment of the penalty imposed in cash and on furnishing bank guarantee for the redemption fine. The learned single Judge also held that in all other respects the appellant had the liberty to file an appeal and seek redress of his grievances. An indulgence was shown, however, that in the event the goods are released on payment of the penalty in cash and on furnishing of a bank guarantee for the redemption fine, the predeposit necessary for filing an appeal shall be dispensed with. Subsequently it appears that the writ petition and a batch of other writ petitions were posted f...
K.C. Dinakaran Vs. S.P. Rajendran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ89
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order of the Election Court in Election O.P. No. 42 of 1986, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, dated 19.1.1990.2. Brief facts are the following: Election for the post of Vice-Chairman of Olakkur Panchayat Union was held on 20.6.1986. The petitioner and the 1st respondent were the only two candidates for Vice-Chairmanship. 58 Voters (Panchayat Presidents) participated in the election including the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that he secured 28 votes and the 1st respondent secured 27 votes and the 4th respondent declared three votes as invalid. Consequently, when he was about to enter the petitioner's name as the successful candidate in the records, at the instance of the second respondent, two votes declared as invalid were counted again in favqur of the first respondent, and ultimately the 4th respondent declared the first respondent as successfu...
M/S. Wilson and Company Private Limited Etc. Vs. K.S. Lokavinayagam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad100
ORDER1. O. P. No. 268 of 1983 (filed on 21st October, 1980) was filed Under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to set aside the award dated 31-10-1976 made by the arbitrator in the disputes between the petitioner/M/s. Wilson & Company Private Limited and the Food Corporation of India and for costs of the petition.2. O. P. No. 536 of 1987 was filed in this Court on 16-6-1977, represented on 3-8-1983, numbered and admitted on 18-11-1987, under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act to file the Award into this Court and to pass a decree in terms of the award.3. The short facts of the case are these :--The petitioner/M/s. Wilson & Company Private Limited is engaged in the business of undertaking and executing construction work was one of the tenderers for the work of constructing godowns for storage of food grains at Arakonam having storage capacity of 25,000 tonnes, called for by the 2nd respondent/ Food Corporation of India. The petitioner...
T.K. Singaram Vs. Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal Chepauk, Madras and Othe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad180; (1991)IIMLJ428
ORDER1. The judgment will dispose of Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 decided on 21st March, 1988 and Writ Petition No. 6390 of 1987. Before dealing with the two cases, it would be desirable to notice the relief claimed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988, in the Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 as well as the relief claimed Writ Petition No. 2553 of 1981 is as follows: 'For the reasons set out in the affidavit of the petitioner hearing it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for all records connected with order D.Dis. 23367/ 79 dated 22-3-81 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal by issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forbear from taking any further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order D.Dis. 23367/ 79 dated 22-3-81 sought to be quashed'.The rel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »