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.
State by Food Inspector, Cuddalore Municipality, Madras Vs. Arunachala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3930
1. This appeal by the State is against acquittal. 2. The respondent-accused is the owner of a grocery shop situate at No. 10-B, Imperial Road, Cuddalore O.T. on 10-7-1985 at about 10 a.m. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, Cuddalore Municipality inspected the provision stores and took sample of Maida after complying with all formalities as prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') for the purpose of analysis. One such sample so taken had been sent to the Public Analyst and the other two samples to the Local Health Authority on the same day of the sampling. The Local Health Authority received the report of the Public Analyst on 31-7-1985 to the effect that the sample, on analysis, was found to be not confirming to the standard prescribed. The Food Inspector, on 16-8-1985 launched the prosecution against the accused-respondent after completing the other formalities which was taken on file as CC. No. 327 of 1985 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metal Powder Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR516(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the view expressed by the Tribunal that the subsidy received from SIPCOT did not go to reduce the actual cost of the plant and machinery for allowing depreciation and development rebate is right in law ?'2. In view of the recent decision of this court in Srinivas Industries v. CIT : [1991]188ITR22(Mad) , the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. ...
K. Subramanyam Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR723(Mad)
Swamidurai, J.1. This is a petition for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 365 of 1987 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Egmore, Madras-8. 2. The third accused is the petitioner. He along with K. Subramanyam and Co., and K. Arumugasamy, were charged for offences punishable under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277 of the Income-tax Act and also under sections 193, 196 and 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code. 3. In para 3 of the complaint, there is a reference that the second and third accused are responsible to the first accused firm for the conduct of the business under section 276B of the Income-tax Act. Apart from that there is no other allegation as against the third accused that he has committed or that the is responsible for the commission of such offences. There is no mention even in the complaint that the third accused made any false entries or made any false statement before the income-tax authorities. Section 278B of...
L. Paulraj Vs. the District Educational Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ140
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1628 of 1990. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. Convenience suggests to us the writ petition while dealing with the controversy in the writ appeal. The petitioner is working as a B.T. Assistant, is the fourth respondent school. The post of the headmaster at the fourth respondent-school fell vacant on 31.5.1988, on account of the retirement of the previous incumbent. So far as the qualification of the petitioner to the post is concerned, the petitioner is qualified. The petitioner claims that the post of the headmaster should be filled up as per G.O.Ms. No. 1297, Education Department, dated 21.7.1979. The foundation for this claim of the petitioner is referable to Clause 2(b)(i), which lays down that the vacancies in the posts of headmasters of middle schools due to death, retirement, resi...
T.K. Singaram Vs. the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ428
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The judgment will dispose of Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1988 which is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2553 of 1981 decided on 21st March, 1988 and W.P. No. 6390 of 1987. Before dealing with the two cases, it would be desirable to notice the relief claimed by the appellant in W.A. No. 591 of 1988, in the W.P. No. 2553 of 1981 as well as the relief claimed. W.P. No. 2553 of 1981 is as follows:For the reasons set out in the affidavit of the petitioner herein it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for all records connected with order D.Dis.23367/79, dated 22.3.1981 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 22.3.1981 sought to be quashed.The relief claimed in W.P. No. 6390 of 1...
The Madurai City Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner Vs. Da ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ147
Bellie, J.1. The defendant-Madurai City Municipal Corporation is the appellant.2. The facts of the case are simple. The plaintiff is the Secretary of the Mid-day Meals centre for two schools viz., Raja Dhanalakshmi Middle School and L.V. Baluswami Iyer and Sons Middle School, Madurai. The two schools were providing mid-day meals to a total of 480 pupils for 200 days in a year. Towards the expenses the Government was contributing at the rate of 6 Paise per pupil till 30.9.1974 and the balance expenses were met with the public donations. Later the Government passed Government Order No. 1804 dated 21.10.1974 as per which the Government would contribute 10 Paise per pupil and the local body i.e., the defendant-Madurai City Municipal Corporation shall contribute a minimum of 5 Paise from 1.10.1974 and thenceforth there shall be no public contribution. Accordingly the Government was making its contribution from 1.10.1974 but the defendant Corporation failed to make any contribution. On accou...
K. Palaniappan Alias K. Subramanian Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ561
Adarsh Sein Anand, C.J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 2928 of 1981 vide judgment dated 14.3.1988.2. The facts are short and not in dispute. An area measuring 3.39 acres in Survey No. 24f in Karahathahalli village, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, which was Government land, was assigned to one Akkumaran by the Government vide order of assignment dated 31.12.1955. The assignment was subject to certain conditions which have been enumerated in Special Form D of Board Standing Order 15, para 9. The assignment of the land was made out of the land which was reserved for Harijans to Akkumaran who was an Adi Dravida. The land was sold by the assignee, Akkumaran, in favour of one Muthu vide sale deed dated 26.11.1979. Muthu also like the assignee was also a Harijan. Subsequently on 4.6.1977 the appellant purchased the land from Muthu.3. On account of the violation of the terms of the assignment, a show cause notice was issue...
Dr. S.D. Kulasekharan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: [1991]192ITR27(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this combined reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the accountable person as well as the Controller of Estate Duty, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : 2. At the instance of the accountable person : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act are attracted 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in refusing to give relief applying the proviso to section 16 read with sections 46(1) and 46(2) of the Estate Duty Act ?' 3. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the inclusion of the lineal descendants' share of Rs. 3,08,687 in the principal value of XXB the estate under section 34(1)(c) w...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Aristo Paints (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC54(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The Revenue has appealed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras, under which the respondent/assessee's appeal has been allowed and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under which he held that the appeal was barred by limitation, has been set aside. 2. The assessing officer's order dated September 17, 1986, was communicated to the assessee on October 18, 1986. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as provided under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on December 18, 1986. Taking notice of an amendment which came into effect from December 17, 1986, a day before the filing of the appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Tribunal, however, has held that the appeal was not barred by limitation and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had committed an error of law in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. I...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Sivasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)10; [1991]189ITR157(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee, an individual, was a partner in the firm of Messrs. Premier Match Works, as per the terms of a deed of partnership dated April 1, 1974. Thereunder, the brother of the assessee, S. K. Pandia Nadar, the assessee, the two sons and daughter-in-law of S. K. Pandia Nadar, were the partners, having made their contributions to the capital in the sums of Rs. 9,000, Rs. 33,000, Rs. 6,000, Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 6,000, respectively. The share of profits of the firm payable to them under the terms of the deed of partnership was fixed at 15%, 55% and 10% each to the other three partners. On June 24, 1974, S. K. Pandia Nadar, one of the partners of Messrs. Premier Match Works and the brother of the assessee, executed a deed of trust constituting a trust of the name of Lalitha Trust and appointing S. S. Sankaralingam and Bhuvaneswari as trustees for the benefit of the two minor daughters. Shyamala and Sharmila, of the assessee through his first wife, Lalitha. A sum of Rs. 11,200...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »