Chennai Court April 1991 Judgments
S. Rajeswaran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ4
1. The accused in C.C. No. 15 of 1983 who has been convicted by the learned VIII Additional Special Judge, Madras Division for an offence under S. 161, I.P.C. and 5(1)(d) r/w. S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the appellant. The accused is an Assistant Conservator of Forest, Andaman Government Timber Depot, Madras, Harbour, Madras. He was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for having received a sum of Rs. 500/- from one Ramachandra Nair, partner of M/s. Paywoods as illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for showing favour to M/s. Paywoods for reconsidering the reduction of Rs. 30,369.20 from the bills of M/s. Paywoods as a public servant. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 19. The accused has not examined any witness on his side but marked Exs. D-1 to D-11. M.Os. 1 to 83 were marked on th...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraj and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ4069
ORDER1. Arvind Distillery and Chemicals Ltd., was located at Kadambuliyur, South Arcot District. It appears that prior to the expiry of the licence, it had applied for renewal of the licence and no orders appeared to have been passed before the expiry of the licence. As any other distillery, it was also posted with excise, officials, inclusive of the guards. 2. Between August, 1979 and 20-10-1979, the personal connected with the distillery, excise officials and third parties, pursuant to a conspiracy hatched among them, carried on distillation in the factory, after the expiry of the licence, removed the rectified spirit from out of the factory premises and clandestinely sold them to third parties with a view to make illegal profits and gain and thereby offended or violated the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act then in force read with the Tamil Nadu Distillery Rules, 1960. The excise officials, besides being the members of the conspiracy, were also stated to have ren...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Engineers Association Etc. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ394Mad; (1993)IIMLJ540
Mishra, J. 1. The question herein is whether the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board is an institution established not for purpose of profit and thus excluded from the purview of Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 2. The appellants herein in their respective petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution claimed that the Act would apply to their cases. The respondents maintained that it would not apply. Learned Single Judge has held : 'The Board is an institution established not for purpose of profit within the meaning of Section 32(v)(c) of the Bonus Act. The dominant purpose of its getting established is not profit earning. It got constituted to execute schemes for providing protected water supply and adequate drainage facilities to urban and rural areas in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is service and social welfare oriented with no dominant purposes of earning profit. In this view it can claim the exemption under Section 32(v)(c) of the Bonus Act'. 3. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswamy and ors. Vs. Sachidanandam Pillai (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ157
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These two appeals are by the same two persons Ponnusamy and Rasu who are defendants in O.S. No. 1014 of 1978, on the file of Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli (against which A.S. No. 588 of 1981 arises) and plaintiffs in O.S. No. 662 of 1980 on the file of Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli (against which A.S. No. 445 of 1983 arises). The sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 1014 of 1978 namely, Sachidananda Pillai is the sole respondent in A.S. No. 588 of 1981 and the 4th respondent in the other appeal A.S.No.446 of 1983. He died pending the appeals and his L. Rs. have been brought on record. The suit O.S.No.1014 of 1978 if for specific performance of Ex.A-7, the deed of surrender of tenancy-right, executed by the first defendant Ponnusamy on. 23.9.1978, whereby the said Ponnusamy after receiving a consideration of Rs. 10,000 surrenders his right of tenancy over the suit land in favour of theplaintiff Sachidananda Pillai, who subsequently becomes the owner of the suit property under sale deeds ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Elegant Garments Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ799Mad; (1991)IIMLJ522
ORDER1. W.M.P. No. 2760 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 2428 of 1986 pending before this Court for an order of interim injunction restraining the first respondent or his agents from demanding the Provident Fund accumulations due from the petitioners, pending disposal of the writ petition. When the same came up for orders, by consent of parties, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing. 2. W.P. No. 2428 of 1986 was filed for a writ of mandamus directing the mandamus directing the first respondent to pass necessary orders stating that the petitioners will come under the Employees Provident Fund Act on the basis of S. 16(1)(b) of the Act only from November 2, 1984 and allot a code number to the petitioner's firm. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have contended that the writ petitioner is a partnership firm, that on October 3, 1981 they entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent, a Government of India Undertaking a...
Tag this Judgment!Doraibabu and ors. Vs. K. Masilamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ359
Mishra, J.1. These appeals against the decrees in C.S. No. 313 of 1976 and C.S. No. 22 of 1977 arise out of a common, judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. They have been heard together. Common arguments have been advanced both on behalf of the appellants and the respondents. Since most of the questions involved in the two suits and appeals are common, they are disposed of together.2. C.S. No. 313 of 1976 was filed for a declaration of the plaintiffs title under a settlement deed dated 12.6.1967 and recovery of possession against 13 defendants of defendants 5 to 13 are tenants. C.S. No. 222 of 1977 had been filed by the first defendant in C.S. No. 313 of 1976 against the 9th defendant in C.S. No. 313 of 1976. Originally C.S. No. 222 of 1977 was filed on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras as O.S. No. 9874 of 1975 for recovery of arrears of rent.3. Mylai Ammal alias Alamelu Ammal, the younger sister of the father of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 313of 1976 (first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Parag Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(36)LC189(Madras)
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the Order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 16.4.1991, to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to release the goods extending the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 53/88 dated 1.3.1988.2. Before dealing with the argument of the Petitioner, it will be better to peruse the Order of the Assistant Collector dated 16.4.1991. The Petitioner had imported two consignments of Acrylic Plastic Sheets in the from of cuttings of U.S.A. origin. Originally, the Bills of Entries were assessed without levying any countervailing duty. However, before release of goods, the matter was re-examined with reference to the Notification No. 53/88 and a show cause notice was given and after hearing the importers the present impugned Order was passed. The argument of the Petitioner is that the impugned Order is so patently illegal and amounts to failure to follow a well established propositions of law and that it has to be set ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurumurthy Naidu Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR394(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. All these four tax revision cases arising under the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act, 1955, are dealt with in common since they involve one and the same assessee and the points raised also are common except some additional point in respect of Tax Cases No. 127 and 128 of 1982. The assessment years concerned are 1974-75 to 1977-78. 2. Having regard to the nature of the submissions made and the consideration requIred, it is not necessary for us to reproduce the facts in respect of the respective assessment years. The revision petitioner has been assessed to agricultural income tax by the Agrl. ITO, Kumbakonam, separately for all these years treating the assessee as an individual. The Commr. of Agrl. IT initiated suo motu revisional proceedings and issued a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the orders already made should not be revised. The assessee, while submitting his explanation, claimed that he had inherited lands from his father and they should be treated a...
Tag this Judgment!K. Duraisamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ197Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner to any one of the permanent post of Sweeper or Helper or Assessor in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, Mettur Dam, the third respondent herein. 2. On August 1, 1974, the petitioner was taken as a part-time Sweeper by the third respondent in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity System, Mettur. The petitioner is being paid Rs. 25 per month as his salary. The petitioner has passed S.S.L.C., and he is qualified to be appointed to the permanent post of Sweeper. The petitioner possessed a long appearance both as Sweeper as well as Helper in the same department from August 1, 1974. The petitioner on March 27, 1979, August 13, 1980, December 26, 1981, October 7, 1982 and even thereafter made representations to the respondents to give him a permanent appointment. The third respondent in his proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Madras Vs. Selva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2143
ORDER1. One S. Selvarajah, S/o. Thiru Selliah, aged 30 years, a Sri Lankan national was stated to be residing at No. 16, VI Street, Lakshmipuram, Thiruvanmiyur, Madras 41. He, it is said, has gained entry into Indian soil by illegal means by crossing the shore by means of a country-boat or Kattamaram. 2. Credible information was stated to have been received by the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras as to his having been involved in trafficking Narcotic drug. Pursuant to receipt of the same, officers of the bureau proceeded to Thiruvanmiyur Bus Terminus on 24-1-1990 at about 7 a.m. and found him there waiting for the bus. He was carrying with him a packet packed with polythene cover. 3. On examination of the said packet, in the presence of independent witnesses, the officers noticed a white and violet colour cardboard box with designs wrapped with brown paper inside the polythene cover. On examination of the cardboard box, they found assorted sweet-meat in it. After the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »