Chennai Court April 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.
Vijayakumar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR197(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, as well as the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for our opinion under sec 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Question of the law referred at the instance of the assessee : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 34,692, Rs. 31,826 and Rs 11, 693 for the assessment year 1958-59, 1961-62, 1962-63, respectively, on account of inflation of cotton purchase price was justified ?' '2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 43,420, Rs. 67,518, Rs. 1,22,346, Rs. 61,745, and Rs. 30,989 on account of interest on borrowings of the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively, was justified ?' '3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 4,40,000 to the total income in the assessment for the year assessment year 1961-62 was justified ?' 3. Question of the...
Mohd. Buhari Vs. Rahamathunissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC474; (1991)IIMLJ160
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the parents of two minor Muslim girls are quarrelling as between themselves for the guardianship of the person and custody of the said minor girls. Though in the petition filed before the first Court guardianship for the properties of the minor girls was also asked for, there are no properties of the minor girls to be administered and hence the controversy centered around only the guardianship of the person and custody of the minor girls. The initiative for guardianship for the person and custody of the minor girls was taken by the mother, the respondent herein. She succeeded before the first Court. The father, the appellant herein, preferred CM.A. No. 851 of 1989 to this Court and that came to be considered by a learned single Judge of this Court and he found no warrant for interference with the decision of the first Court and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The learned single Judge directed the father, the appellant herei...
L. Krishnan and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ150
Abdul Hadi, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the respective land acquisition proceedings. As certain common questions are involved in them, they are taken up together and disposed of. One common question which was argued in most of these writ petitions is whether the respective Section 4(1) notifications in them could be quashed, on the ground that they suffered from the vice of vague-nessor indefiniteness. We shall first deal with that question.2. Both W.P. No. 2758 of 1983 and W.P. No. 9654 of 1986 are by the same petitioner Mrs. Marian Joseph. The first of the said two, is for a mandamus to forbearing the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice of the second respondent therein under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, (For convenience sake, hereinafter be referred to as Act) in his No. Ka/3264/72/A dated 18.9.1983 against the petitioner. The same petitioner has subsequently filed W.P. No. 9654 of 1986 for a writ of certiorari for quashing the s...
V. Venkatesan Vs. Karnataka Handlooms Development Corporation Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ130
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first respondent in this writ petition is a Corporation owned and controlled wholly by the State of Karnataka. The petitioner was appointed as the Sales Manager by the first respondent and was posted at Madras on 7.1.1980 and he was entrusted with the duty of canvassing the sale of fabrics, dealt with by the first respondent-Corporation at Madras. Apart from the petitioner, there was an Accounts Assistant, five Sales Assistants and two helpers and with the help of them the petitioner had to manage the affairs of the show room at Madras. On 25.3.1985 the petitioner received a letter described as office order from the first respondent stating that there was a shortfall in the cash receipts and that a sum of Rs. 64,635.33 was due to the first respondent-Corporation. It was further stated in that letter that the petitioner dishonestly misappropriated the abovesaid amount by abusing his official position and the petitioner was warned that if he did not make good ...
Krishnaswamy Vs. Inspector of Police and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2998
Mishra, J.1. The Petitioner herein has moved for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of his friends (1) Ravi alias Puli Ravi alias Kaveti S/o. Ramaiah (2) Ganga Rao (3) Narayana (4) Durga Rao and (5) Lakshmiah, who it is not known why, were arrested on 18-7-1988 and remanded to custody on 31-9-1988. Their remand was extended from time to time. 2. It is said in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and that is all, which, if stated, would give us an idea of the legal rights pleaded by the petitioner : 'The charge-sheet was not filed within ninety days and as such the remanding Magistrate ought to have released the detenus on bail. Hence the detention is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to 167(2), Cr.P.C. and totally illegal'.3. The contents of the cryptic petition had been returned by the respondents in the same cryptic way, except that in one counter-affidavit we find a statement that the abovenamed persons have been committed to the Court of Pr...
R. Rathinam Vs. Kamala Vaiduriam and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2661
Mishra, J.1. Petitioner herein, who is the father of a minor girl Rukmani, has filed this petition alleging that the first respondent, who was a friend of his mother-in-law and thus an acquaintance, decided to have a girl of small age to attend to the household course at her brother's house at Madras. Rukmani, then aged about nine years, was entrusted to the custody of the first respondent on 4-10-1989. According to the petitioner after Rukmani was entrusted to the first respondent and who took away Rukmani from his custody, in spite of repeated demands did not permit him to see his daughter. He has alleged. 'I submit that the first respondent had written a letter addressed to me on 19-9-1990 asking me to come over to Madras on 21-9-1990 regarding my minor daughter's return of custody to me. Though I came over to Madras I could not contact the first respondent or any one else at the address furnished by her in the letter received by me and perforce returned disappointed.' 'In the mean...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Popular Borewell Service and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Mad)240; [1992]194ITR12(Mad)
1. These tax case references are dealt with together, as common questions of law relating to the allowance of depreciation and grant of investment allowance on a certain type of machinery, viz., rig and compressor arise for consideration. However, it will be convenient, to refer to the facts and the question arising for decision in each of these references. 2. The assessee in T. C. No. 242 of 1986 is a firm carrying on the business or drilling bore-wells. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee claimed depreciation at 30% on the rig and compressor under item No. III(ii) D(9) of part I of Appendix I to the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), on the ground that they constituted an integral part of the lorry on which they were mounted and were also worked by the same engine which provided traction to the lorry. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation at 30% on the rig and compressor. ...
N.K.S.M. Shahul Hameed and Etc. Vs. Mohamed Ibrahim and Another Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ227
ORDER1. Abdul Hamid also known as Hamid Rowther, Mohammed Ibrahim and Sulthan are brothers. They are natives of Arasarkulam village. Jaffar Ali and I. Raj Mohammed are the sons of Mohammed Ibrahim. Sulthan, it is said, went to Singapore and more or less permanently settled there. He appeared to have purchased a sizable extent of arable lands in his native village and those lands were stated to have been entrusted with his other two brothers for purpose of cultivation. Having been dissatisfied with their cultivation and proper management of those lands, he got those lands entrusted to the possession of I. Raj Mohammed and this resulted in want of cordial atmosphere among them. 2. In due course of time, it is said, want of cordial atmosphere rose to such a dizzy height of the family members of Abdul Hamid and Mohammed Ibrahim vowing to wreak vengeance on I. Raj Mohammed. The conspiracy, it is said, had been hatched at a lodge going by the name 'Malar Lodge' at Karaikudi to murder I. Raj ...
Shine Woollen Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: 1994LC477(Madras); 1992(58)ELT427(Mad)
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support of W.P. Nos. 5699 to 5701/91 and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate General for M/s. E. S. Govindan and R. Sudhakar, Advocates for the petitioners in all the petitions and of Mr. Srinivasamoorthi Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions the court made the following order :- The Writ petition is directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs made on 1-4-1991. It is not disputed that against the said order the petitioner has got a right to appeal. I am, therefore, not going into the points urged before me by way of final adjudication but I am only looking for a prima facie case in respect of the present W.M.P. seeking release of the goods. The petitioner had imported synthetic rags through the Tuticorin Port on 28-1-1991. The two grounds on which a show cause notice was issued to the petitio...
K.V. Ananthanarayanan and ors. Vs. K.G. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ292a
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This C.R.P. is by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The suit is for damages to the tune of Rs. 2, 00, 000 claimed against the said defendants-petitioners who are doctors who did an operation on the plaintiff-respondent, an advocate on the ground that the operation has been done wrongly by the said doctors. But, on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent is an indigent person O.P. No. 282 of 1988 has been filed seeking permission of the court to sue as an indigent person. The said O.P. has been allowed by order dated 1.8.1990. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred this C.R.P. The court below has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is an indigent person on the ground that as per Ex. B-2 partition deed, the plaintiff got only a life interest in the property given under the said partition deed. But, after perusal of Ex. B-2, 1 find that apart from the said life interest, he also got another property absolutely, under the partition d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »