Chennai Court March 1991 Judgments
Rukumani Devi Balasingam Vs. the Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2505
Janarthanam, J.1. The petitioner detenu Rukmani Devi Balasingam challenges the order of detention F. No. 801/13/90-PITNOPS dated 26-6-1990 passed by the Union of India represented by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi under S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 with a view to preventing her from engaging in the possession, transportation and concealment of Narcotic Drugs. 2. On 19-5-1990, she, holder of Sri Lankan passport No. A. 187034 and bound for Colombo by Air Lanka Flight No. UL 132 came to the Customs Baggage Examination Hall at Trichy Airport for customs clearance. She was holding Air Lanka Flight Ticket No. 603 : 4400 : 280 : 283 : 5, for travels to Colombo. The Customs officials were already in receipt of credible information that she was to transport Narcotic Drugs illicitly by concealing them in the stem portion of Kuthuvilakhus (oil lamps used for r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Mad)1; [1991]192ITR108(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. These tax case references relating to the same assessee, though for different assessment years are dealt with together as a common important question of law relating to the allowance of depreciation on a certain type of machinery arises for consideration. It will be convenient, however, to refer to the facts and the question arising for decision in each of these references. 2. The assessee in T.C. Nos. 1188 to 1190 of 1980 is a company and the relevant assessment years are 1972-73 to 1974-75. In the course of the assessment proceedings for those assessment years, the assessee had claimed 30% depreciation on drills and rigs owned and used by it in its business which was initially allowed. Later, in the course of audit, it came to light that excess depreciation on the machinery had been allowed and that led to the reopening of the assessments. In the course of the reassessment proceedings, the assessee maintained that it was entitled to depreciation at 30% which however, was...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Kumar, Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer/Plant, Integral Coach Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ500
Lakshmanan, J.1. O.P. No. 96 of 1989 was filed by the sole arbitrator under Section l4(2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to receive the Award dated 15.12.1986 and to issue notice of the filing of the Award to the respondents.2. Since the Original Award has been filed in this Court as per the Order of this Court, dated 29.8.1990, no further orders are necessary in O.P. No. 96 of 1988.3. O.P. No. 392 of 1989 was filed by M/s. Shriram Fabricators, a proprietary concern against Union of India and the Sole Arbitrator, under Secs.30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to set aside the Award dated 15.12.1986 passed by the sole arbitrator and for costs.4. In respect of the purchase order bearing No. ICF/30/7/83/1/2710/4, dated 30.3.1984 which is governed by the Indian Railways Standard Conditions of Contract for the supply of frame for lower luggage rack disputes arose between Union of India and M/s. Shriram Fabricators to supply the materials as per the purchas...
Tag this Judgment!New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Represented by C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR64(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The petitioner-assessee is a private limited company owning various plantations. The main crop in the plantations is rubber, for the assessment year 1979-80, the petitioner filed a return under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It claimed certain deductions while computing the total taxable income. The assessing authority, while computing the net taxable income for the said year, disallowed some items of expenses. The order of the assessing authority disallowing some items of expenses was questioned before the appellate authority who allowed the appeal in part, but maintained the disallowance in respect of certain items of expenses. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed certain more items of expenses in full while some claims were allowed in part. We are relieved of the need to deal with the items which w...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.L. Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR836(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.1. The assessing authority clubbed the income of the assessee along with that of his wife by invoking the provisions of section 9(2)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The assessing authority, however, did not indicate, let alone consider and discuss, as to whether the wife was having a membership in the firm, except a bald statement to the effect 'add one-fourth share of Smt. P. Umayal under section 9(2)(a)(i) - Rs. 16,055.16'. The appellate authority, when approached by the assessee in appeal, negatived the plea of the assessee that the income of the wife could not be included in his income. It was argued that the assessee was the kartas of a Hind undivided family and, therefore, the income of the wife could not be included under section 9(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The appellate authority, however, did not agree. When the matter went to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appel...
Tag this Judgment!M.K.S. Abubackar Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC351; 1991(56)ELT326(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner's house was searched on 28-12-1985 and among other things, certain diamonds were seized. On the very same day, the diamonds were assayed by certain experts brought by the respondents. Annexure to the mahazar shows the opinion of the experts and the weight as well as the value of the diamonds seized. The opinion of the expert was that the goods in fact were diamonds and they were of particular value and weight. The petitioner had also signed the annexure containing the opinion of the expert. A statement was also recorded from the petitioner, but, the petitioner promptly retracted the statement on 29-12-1985. A show cause notice was issued on 13-6-1986. The petitioner submitted his replies on 2-12-1986, 6-12-1986 and February, 1987. Personal hearing was given. Witnesses were examined and written submissions were also called for. It is the case of the petitioner that the evidence adduced by him at the enquiry clearly tallies with his case and the expert opinion on t...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Manoranjitham Vs. Mrs. T.S. Gangabai, Kalaivani Industrial Trader ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ482
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful landlady in rent control proceedings.2. Brief facts are the following:The petitioner herein purchased the suit premises from one Ramasami Chettiar on 14.11.1979. Thereafter, since no rents were paid, a notice demanding rents for the period from November, 1979 to January, 1981 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent. In reply to this notice, the respondent has stated inter alia that what was let out was only a site. The respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of advance to the vendor of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 1,400 has been paid towards property tax, and the vendor has agreed to adjust the said amount from the rents payable by her. According to the respondent, there was no default in payment of rents. It may be mentioned that when the notice was issued by the petitioner, by mistake, rents were demanded from the respondent from 1.11.1978. While issuing a rejoinder to the reply sent by ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagammai and Others Vs. V. Rakkamal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad136; I(1993)DMC322
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. Defendants 1 to 5 in O. S. No. 32 of 1976, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of heirship and recovery of possession on the strength of title. The plaintiff based her claim as follows: The plaintiff is the daughter of Velu Ambalam and Karuppayee, who were lawfully wedded as husband and wife. The plaintiff was born out of such wedlock on 3-11-1943. The first defendant was a sister's daughter of Velu Ambalam and she was brought into the family for domestic assistance. Velu Ambalam developed sexual contact with the first defendant due to proximity. The first-defendant was not the lawfully wedded wife of Velu Ambalam. Defendants 2 to 5 were born to the first-defendant out of her illegal intimacy with Velu Ambalam. The plaintiff and her another Karuppayee were driven out of the household at the instance ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. (Mrs.) Ruth Annamalai Vs. Mrs. Valliammai Achi, W/O of Late Dr. Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad284
ORDER1. On 4-3-1988 the plaintiff filed the O. P. No. 197 of 1988 under Ss. 222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with O. XXV, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules. In the said petition, the petitioner sought to prove the writing propounded by her as the last Will and Testament of Dr. A. L. Annamalai, one of the very eminent and leading medical practitioners in Tamil Nadu who passed away on 12-5-1987 at Madras. The prayer in the O.P. is to prove the Will in comon form and for grant of probate to have the effect throughout India. In the petition she has described herself as a Christian and claims to be second wife of the deceased and avers that the estate of the deceased was governed by the Hindu Succession Act. In paragraph No. 7 of the original petition she has stated as follows :--'7. The estate of deceased was governed by the Hindu Succession Act and the following persons are his heirs: (1) The petitioner herein who is the second wife is residing at No. 112, Poonamallee H...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thangiah Panniar Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad240
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certified mandamus to quash the order of the respondent dated 6-5-1986 in its proceedings No. 115319/83-7, Public (PP. IV) Department, and to direct the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Freedom Fighters' Pension Rules, 1966.2. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is as follows:-- The petitioner is a political sufferer who participated in the freedom struggle from the year 1931 up to the year 1942. In 1931, the petitioner took part in the Liquor Shop picketting and wasremanded to custody by the Sub Magistrate, Tuticorin, for one week. In 1942, the petitioner participated in the 'Quit India Movement'. During this movement, the petitioner cut the telephone and telegraphic wires and burnt Post Offices. In connection with participating in the Quit India Movement in 1942, the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for two months by the Sub Magistrate, Tuticorin. The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »