Chennai Court December 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.
Sadhasivam Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2010
Maruthamuthu, J. 1. This appeal arisen from the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in Sessions Case No. 105 of 1985 dated 10-10-1985. In the aforestated Sessions Case, the appellant stood charged under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. on the allegation that at or about 2.30 p.m. on 27-10-1983 at Oduvanpatti, within the limits of S. V. Mangalam Police Station, in furtherance of the common intention of committing the murder of Karuppiah, son of Vellaisami, the appellant caught hold of deceased Karuppiah while the absconding accused Karuppiah committed the said murder by cutting the deceased with an aruval indiscriminately on his head, neck, chest and other parts of the body and caused his death. Since the other accused Karuppiah was absconding, the case was split up, and charge as stated above, was framed against the appellant alone and he was tried by the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. After trial,...
Viswam and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: [1993]201ITR291(Mad)
ORDER--Penalty under s. 271(1)(a)--Mens rea--Tribunal restricting penalty for a shorter period as it was found that assessee had reasonable cause for part of delay in filing return--Question whether Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty in theAPPLICATION :Sec. 271(1)(a) stands omitted.Income Tax Act 1961 s.271(1)(a)Income Tax Act 1961 s.256 Ratnam, J.1. In this tax case petition, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming penalty under section 27(1)(a) for a period of one month (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty in the absence of mens rea on the part of the applicant ?' 2. In so far as the first question is concerned, we find from para 4 of the order of the Tribunal that th...
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Vs. Madras Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 1994(46)ECC48; 1995(79)ELT387(Mad); (1992)IIMLJ159
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :- 'to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction of like nature of a writ, directing the second respondent to reship the consignment of 20 Tonnes each of raisins lying with the first respondent back to the supplier at Turkey after complying with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11-7-1991 in U.G. No. 8/CM/CAT 890/1189/91/TC ......' 2. The petitioner-Devasthanam obtained an import licence for the import of dried grapes (raisins) vide licence No. 0348730 dated 30-1-1989 for a value of Rs. 40 lakhs. The raisins to be imported by the petitioner-Devasthanam is for preparing prasadams like laddus, etc. As per the licence, the import has to be routed through the State Trading Corporation, the second respondent herein, and as such, the petitioner-Devasthanam had to import the dried grapes through the second respondent herein. The Execution Officer of the petitioner-Devasthanam sent a telex on 28-8-1990 to the seco...
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Represented by Its Marketing Officer, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ159
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction of like nature of a writ, directing the second respondent to reship the consignment of 20 Tonnes each of raisins lying with the first respondent back to the supplier at Turkey after complying with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.7.1991.... 2. The petitioner-Devasthanam obtained an import licence for the import of dried grapes (raisins) vide licence No. 0348730, dated 30.1.1989 for a value of Rupees 40 Lakhs. The raisins to be imported by the petitioner-Devasthanam is for preparing prasadams like Laddus etc. As per the licence, the import has to be routed through the State Trading Corporation, the second respondent herein, and as such the petitioner-Devasthanam had to import the dried grapes through the second respondent herein. The Executive Officer of the petitioner-Devasthanam sent a telex on 28.8.1990 to the second respondent requestin...
M. Kamatchiammal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR605(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the assessee, the following common questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-individual is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv)(a) in respect of the exempted asset, namely, agricultural land, held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, in computing the net wealth of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in section 5(1)(viii)(a) of the Act ?' 2. Though the references were received in this court as far back as September 29, 1981, and the assessee had been served in the references, till this date the assessee had not taken steps to prosecute the references. Not even vakalat had been filed on behalf of the assessee, though 10 years have elapsed. Indeed, it...
K. Palaniswamy Vs. State and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]197ITR455(Mad)
ORDER UNDER S. 132(3)--Money circulation scheme--Bank accounts frozen--Petition for return of amount and allow the accused to operate bank accounts cannot be allowed by invoking s. 451 or s. 482, CrPC.HELD :No petition under s. 451 CrPC had been filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the seized amount was stated to have been produced. Further the sum stated to be in the credit of individual accounts of respondents in various banks had not at all been seized by the first respondent and produced before any criminal court and the second respondent had frozen the accounts under s. 132(3). In such situation neither the power under s. 451, CrPC nor the power under s. 482, CrPC is capable of being invoked at this stage by the court. The properties seized in the instant case, namely, currency notes cannot be subject to speedy and natural decay, so that it can be said that if the same is kept in the custody of the court or in a bank, as per the directions of the court, ...
R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1993)ILLJ590Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the order of the 2nd respondent, dt. June 27, 1990 by which he has been placed under suspension under Regulation 12(b) of the Syndicate Bank Officer-Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The petitioner was recruited as a Probationary Officer in 1972, and after serving in many places, he was transferred to Perambur Branch as Branch Manager in August 1984 in which capacity he was working till he was kept under ad interim suspension pending enquiry. The order of suspension was passed on December 26, 1985 under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Regulations pending disciplinary proceedings. A chargesheet was issued to the petitioner in September, 1987 and another supplementary chargesheet was issued to him in October, 1987. When the charges were being enquired into and before final orders were passed on these two charge memos, another charge memo was issued on June 23, 1990. Subsequently the impugned order came to be pa...
Cethar Vessels Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC199
Somasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 15015 to 15017 of 1991 respectively are the appellants in these writ appeals. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in the writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the nomenclature in the writ petitions.2. The petitioner in all these three writ petitions is one and the same viz., Cethar Vessels Ltd., represented by its Joint Managing Director, Mr. R.T. Arasu. The petitioner is a manufacturer of boiler components and has entered into contracts with purchasers of boilers at site. One type of such boilers is Cethar Fluidix Boiler, which uses fluid bed combustion system for converting water into steam. The petitioner has classified the same in the year 1985-86 claiming exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 120 of 1981 dated 15.06.1981 as amended by Notification No. 209 of 1982 dated 9.8.1982. Subsequently it claimed exemption under another Notification No. 205 of 1988 dated 2...
Vedanayagy Vs. Porkilai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ80
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal has to be disposed of on a very short ground. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S.F. No. 5 of 1968 of the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry on 6.11.1976. The decree is one for declaration of the respondent's title to the property. The respondent filed execution proceedings and took possession of the property on 13.1.1981. The appellant filed a petition under Order 21, Rules 99 and 101, C.P.C., for ordering redelivery of the property. The appellant's case is that the property belongs to her and she is not bound by the decree as she is not a party thereto. The appellant raised a contention that the decree is one for mere declaration and it cannot be executed for recovery of possession.3. The executing court accepted the contention of the appellant and allowed the application filed by the appellant. On appeal the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry held that the decree, though one fo...
Vijayalakshmi and ors. Vs. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ152
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.2. In a suit for partition, namely, O.S. No. 92 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tuticorin, a decree was passed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein. Clause 12 of the decree directed the plaintiffs in that suit to deliver possession of items 7 and 9 to 12 of the plaint II schedule properties to defendants 2 and 3 therein respondents 1 and 2 herein are defendants 2 and 3 in that suit. Item 7 in that suit is the property to which the present proceedings relate. When the decree holders attempted to take delivery of possession of the property, the appellants herein obstructed. A petition to remove their obstruction was filed by the decree holders in E.A. No. 30 of 1988 and the petition was ordered by the executing court. The appellants filed C.M.A. No. 1070 of 1990 in this Court. By order dated 4.2.1991, I set aside the order passed by the executing court to a limited extent and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »