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.
V.G. Balasundaram and Others Vs. New theatres Carnatic Talkies Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas324(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J. 1. The first respondent company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are brothers and son of one Balaswamy Naidu. The petitioners are the sons of late Guruviah Naidu. Guruviah Naidu and Balaswamy Naidu are brothers. The capital of the company is Rs. 1 lakh divided into 100 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 50,000 made up of 50 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. 2. The petitioners, who are the sons of Guruviah Naidu, have filed this petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners herein are the shareholders of the first respondent company holding between themselves 25 fully paid-up shares of Rs. 1,000 each out of the total issued and subscribed and paid-up capital of 50 shares of Rs. 50,000 each. They have been holding these shares ever since 1967. The petitioners thus held 50 per cent. of the issued capital of the...
Bheena Pharma Japadar Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC79; 1992(58)ELT480(Mad)
ORDER1. Both the writ petitions filed by two different firms through the power of Attorney Agent are directed against the summons issued by the fourth respondent on 11-10-1991 under Section 108 of the Customs Act.2. These writ petitions are off-shoot of earlier writ petition Nos. 13702 and 13703 of 1991. Writ Petition No. 13702 of 1991 was filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents therein to assess five Bills of Entry relating to Invoice Nos. 932 to 936 dated 7-9-1991 and Bill of Lading No. 232-86442764 dated 8-9-1991 and relating to the goods therein. The said writ petition was filed by M/s. R. V. Chem, through its Power of Attorney Agent D. R. Vora. Writ Petition No. 13703 of 1991 was filed by Bheena Pharma through its Power of Attorney Agent D. R. Vora praying for the vary same relief to direct the respondents to assess the two Bills of Entry relating to Invoice Nos. 930 and 931 dated 7-9-1991 and Bill of Lading No. 232-86442764 dated 8-9-1991. When the abo...
Mohini Philip Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ129Mad; (1993)IILLJ182Mad
ORDER1. The above three writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner and having regard to the nature of the issues involved and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, they are dealt with together in this order. 2. The petitioner in the above writ petitions was working as a Nursing Officer in military service as on January 30, 1984, when by the impugned proceedings, she was ordered to be released and relieved from service. The petitioner, in the common affidavit filed in support of the above writ petitions, states that she was appointed in the military nursing service on November 10, 1969, that after completion of the probation period her services were regularised, that she got married on January 31, 1982 and that as per the rules she was asked to apply for retention in service. The petitioner also admits, having applied for retention in service, that she was granted extension by virtue of the letter dated May 12, 1982 for a further period...
Subbu Reddiar and anr. Vs. the District Revenue Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ64
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the first respondent in R.Dis. No. 189131 of 1982, dated 7.12.1983.2. The petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, claim that they are owners of the land measuring about 2.17 acres in S. No. 364(6) of Balakrishnapatti Village of Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappali District, and that the second respondent claiming himself to be a tenant in respect of an extent of 0.85 acre out of the said 2.17 acres moved the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') to have his name recorded as a tenant. The Tahsildar, Musiri, before whom the application was filed, is said to have rejected the application on 10.5.1982. The appeal filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Musiri also appears to have been rejected by the Appellant Authority on 18.10.1982. Thereupon...
Zainab Bibi (Died) and ors. Vs. Syed Bhaudeen Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ446
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree for partition. In the final decree a sum of Rs. 16,202.97 was found to be due to the petitioner towards her share in the income from the properties. A decree was passed accordingly, but the court used the expression 'mesne profits' which is really incorrect. A share of income from the properties which is due to a co-sharer cannot be treated as mesne profits. It is reallya part of the divisible properties. In Babburu Basavayya and Ors. v. Babburu Guruvayya and Anr. : AIR1951Mad938 , a Full Bench of this Court had discussed the matter and held that in a suit for partition there is no question of mesne profits within the meaning of Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C. but it is only a question of accounting under Order 20, Rule 18, C.P.C, and it observed as follows:The profits accruing from the common properties pending a suit for partition, like the properties themselves, are liable to be partitioned under the final decree even without a specif...
M. Arumugam Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC206
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. The petitioner himself is the detenu. The prayer in this writ petition is for the issue of a habeas for the production of the petitioner before a this Court, to be set free after quashing the impugned order of detention dated 8th May, 1991 passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) with a view to preventing him from dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods.2. The facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention will have to be stated:- Acting on intelligence, on 27.4.1991, the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, after keeping a watch, surprised the occupants, of Room No. 36, in Poornima Lodge, situated at No. 278, N.H. Road, Coimbatore. The detenu and two others were present in the said room. Hussain, who was presen...
G.S. Ramachar Vs. the Block Development Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ73
ORDERSrinvasan, J.1. When the appeal was called, Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, learned Counsel for the appellant, reported that the 8th defendant, who is the 6th respondent in the appeal, died and that she has filed an application to bring his legal representatives on record. I find that the 6th respondent herein who was the 8th defendant in the suit remained ex parte in both the courts below. In this second appeal, no notice was issued to him and the counsel got it dispensed with under Order 41, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also seen that the prayer in the plaint is not only or. behalf of the plaintiffs but also on behalf of defendants 8 and 9. Thus, the deceased defendant was sailing with the plaintiffs and there was no contest as among them. In these circumstances, there is no necessity to bring the legal representatives of the 6th respondent (8th defendant) on record in this second appeal. Under Order 22, Rule 4(4), C.P.C., the court can exempt, whenever it thinks fit, the...
The Superintending Engineer, National Highways Vs. T. Chellagursamy an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ624
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The appellant in these two civil miscellaneous appeals is the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli. C.M.A. No. 261 of 1985 arises out of the O.P.No.89 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur filed by the appellant for passing a decree in terms of the Award passed by the Arbitrator, who is the 2nd respondent in both the appeals. C.M.A.No.262 of 1985 arises out of O.P. No. 108 of 1981 filed by the 1st respondent in both the appeals, to set aside the said Award in so far as it relates to paras 1, 3 and 4 of the Award 'A Common Judgment was passed in both the original petitions on 22.10.1983.2. The 1st respondent is the Highways contractor. As per the agreement between the appellant and the 1st respondent, the appellant gave the 1st respondent contractor, the work of laying approach road to the bridge in question. The said work consisted of two stages. One is collecting gravel on the said road side and the rate for doing the said wor...
In Re: Asian Investments Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas517(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J.1. These petitions were filed by the transferors and transferee-companies to sanction a scheme of amalgamation whereby the petitioner-company in Company petitions Nos. 50, 51 and 53 of 1991 (hereinafter called 'transferor-companies'), would get merged with the petitioner-company in Company Petition No. 52 of 1991, the transferee-company. 2. Asian Investments (petitioner in C.P. No. 50 of 1991) was registered as a limited company on August 20, 1981. It carries on a business in investments and leasing. This company is the holding company of the transferee-company (Petitioner in C.P. No. 52 of 1991.) 3. The transferor-companies, viz., Asian Investments and Crescent Investments Limited and Ruby Investments Limited, are the promoter companies of South Asian Financial Exchange Limited. The directors of the three transferor-companies were of the view that the amalgamation would enable the transferee-company to carry on the combined business very economically and efficiently and ...
Dollar Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: [1993]204ITR103(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of certain specified medicinal products. The main products of the petitioner-company are 'Hedensa' and 'Eichensa'. According to the petitioner, these products cannot be sold unless consumer awareness is created through advertisements and publicity. On an average, the petitioner-company is said to be spending 20 per cent. of the value of the net sales in a year towards the advertisement. Section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, prescribe conditions as to extent to which the expenditure on advertisements shall be allowed while computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. With effect from April 1, 1979, sub-sections (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D) were introduced in section 37 of the Act and they provided for disallowance of part of the expenditure on advertisements. However, with effect from April 1, 1981, those sub...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »