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.
R. Durairaj Vs. Seethalakshmiammal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad242; (1992)IMLJ160
1. This is a maintenance matter. The first defendant-husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff and son of the second defendant is the appellant.2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 i.e., the mother and daugher filed the suit for their maintenance and for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff daughter on the following allegations :--The first defendant neglected both the plaintiffs and he has been living with another lady by name Jayam for the past 12 years and he had married her and has begotten four children through her. First defendant was an Executive Officer in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Four years back he was dismissed from service and now he is living with his second wife Jeyam along with her children in a portion of the house in which the plaintiffs and the second defendant are living. Not only the first defendant did not take care of the plaintiffs but also he picked up quarrels with them. He did not care to do anything for the ma...
J. Boopalan Vs. Inspector of Police, Pallavaram, Madras 43
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1235
ORDER1. One J. Boopalan, the petitioner herein, is residing at No. 15, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Pallavaram Cantonment, Madras-43, falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Pallavaram Police Station, to which the respondent herein is attached as Inspector of Police. He claims to have to his credit the following appellations, namely (1) Trade Union Leader; (2) Social Worker; and (3) Councillor of St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Cantonment Board. 2. To his shock and dismay, he would say, he found his named displayed in the notice board of the respondent Police Station on 9-11-1990 in Serial No. 2 in the list of rowdies. The petitioner, invoking in inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. came forward with the present action seeking for a direction for the removal of his name from the list of rowdies contending that such a display offends his fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that such inclusion, without his havi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coromandel Leathers (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR260(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. In this tax case reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the cost of the plant and machinery could not be reduced by the amount of subsidy received by the assessee-company from SIPCOT for computing the depreciation and investment allowance admissible to it ?' 2. Recently, we had occasion to consider an identical question while dealing with Srinivas Industries v. CIT : [1991]188ITR22(Mad) . It is not in dispute that the answer returned in that reference would be applicable to this reference as well. In view of that, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Muthu Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC561(Mad)
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above batch of cases are dealt with in common since they deal with a common and identical question as to whether 'ultramarine blue' will fall under item 110 or 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' 2. T.C. No. 1108 of 1981. - The Revenue is the petitioner before this Court. The assessee is a dealer in dyes and chemicals. For the assessment year 1978-79, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai, while finalising the assessment, disallowed their claim in respect of (a) exemption of a turnover of Rs. 24,830.41 as second sales, and (b) dispute of rate of tax on a turnover of Rs. 17,35,113.26, being the sale of 'ultramarine blue' to be 8 per cent instead of ten per cent. In respect of the second of the claim, the assessing authority held the sale of 'ultramarine blue' to fall under item 110 of the First Schedule treating the same to be 'colour'. On appeal, the appellate authority, though held 'ultr...
V.K. Kumaresan Vs. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad232
ORDER1. The petitioner challenge the order of the first respondent passed in proceedings IA/2/90-91 in ARC 1173/90 dated 27-9-1990.2. It is alleged in the affidavit of thepetitioner that a notification was issued for the election to the Board of the Thudiyaloor Co-op. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., and the election was held on 27-8-1990 to elect 12 Directors It is alleged that the petitioner and other 10 persons belonging to their group were declared elected and only one, who was declared as Director of the said society, belongs to rival group. It is stated in the affidavit that third and fourth respondents who were not successful in the election filed an Election Petition before the second respondent challenging the election held on 27-8-1990 on various grounds. It seems the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner as well as respondents (in the election petition) for an enquiry. When the Election Officer notified by his proceedings dated 25-9-1990 that the election to ...
M/S Fatima Tile Works and Etc. Vs. M/S. Sudarsan Trading Company Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad12; (1991)IIMLJ599
ORDER1. Original Petition No. 358 of 1982 was filed by M/s. Fatima Tile Works, Marathakkara, Trichur, Kerala under S. 66 read with S. 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 hereinafter called the Act for rectification of the register or removal of the registered trade mark granted in favour of one Madura Company Limited and later assigned in favour of Sudarsan Trading Company, hereinafter called as STC.2. Original Petition No. 309 of 1983 was filed by M/s. Standard Tile Factory (Private) Limited, Karuvannur, Trichur District, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Balan against STC, Calicut and against the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras-6 under S. 56 read with S. 107 of the Act for rectification of the register or removal of the registered trade mark.3. The contesting respondent in both the original petitions is M/s. Sudarsan Trading Company (STC), Calicut-1.4. The short facts are as follows : The trade mark in question was registered under No. 2763 in Part A of t...
Angammal and Others Vs. M. Ramalinga Pandaram and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad246
1. The above appeal has been filed against the order dated 20-8-1980 made in A. S. No. 44 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur whereunder the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, remanded the matter for fresh disposal in respect of two points, namely, (a) whether the plaintiffs are the only next or the nearest reversioners to the estate of Sami Pandaram; and (b) whether Veera-badran is or is not the next or nearest heir or a person in the male line of succession to Angamuthu, Vathan, Kappa and Chinniah.2. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the points raised before me are as follows: Respondents 1 and 2 have filed O.S. No. 69 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif, Kulithalai praying (a) for a declaration that the plaintiffs, and 9th defendant, who is the 8th respondent before this Court, are entitledexclusively to the one-fourth right of the deceased paternal uncle Swami Pandaram in...
State Vs. Balakrishan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1872
T.S. Arunachalam, J. 1. The state represented by the learned Public Prosecutor has chosen to challenge the sustainability of the acquittal of the respondents of offences punishable under Sections 342, 352 and 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code recorded in S.C. No. 42 of 1983 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur. The first respondent was the Inspector of Police, Tirukkattupalli Circle within whose jurisdiction Budalur Police Station was situated. The 2nd respondent was the then Sub-Inspector of Police. Budalur. The 3rd respondent was the head-constable; 4th respondent the writer and the 5th respondent a police constable attached to the Budalur police station. 2. This prosecution relates to the alleged illegal custody of one Durairaj of Kadambakudi between 6-6-1981 and 11-6-1981 at Budalur Police Station and Manaiaripatti Beggars Rehabilitation Home and the ultimate death of Durairaj by hanging in the lock up of the Budalur Police Station, in the early hours of 11-6-1981. 3. The...
Pentasia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. the Secretary, Pentasia Pattali Thozhil Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ475
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26.2.1991 made in W.P. No. 1687 of 1991 where under the said petition filed for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, to grant adequate police protection for the petitioner-company for it to carry on its day-to-day activities such as deposit of raw materials and fuels, despatch of finished goods, entry and exit of men, materials and, vehicles carrying raw materials and fuels to and from the petitioner-Company's premises situated at B-5/B -10 SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Kudikadu Village, Cuddalore came to be dismissed.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was stated that the Registered office of the Company is at Madras, that the Company has its factory at Cuddalore and is engaged in the manufacture of Pentaerythritols and Sodium Formate, employing about 82 workmen involved in various kinds of manufacturing acti...
Lakshmi Vs. the Sub-inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2269
Mishra, J.1. Lakshmi, the detenu's mother, has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that her son Murugan, aged 15 years, has been illegally detained by the respondent. It appears that one Venkatesan of Thuvariman Agraharam made a complaint to the respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai South, that while he and his wife were away therefrom. Someone entered into the house through the ventilator and committed theft of cash and jewels. Petitioner's son Murugan was taken in custody on suspicion in connection with the said case on 8-2-1991 by the respondent who, according to the petitioner, told her that he would send back her son immediately after interrogation. She has, however, alleged that she and her husband waited till the next morning but the boy (their son) did not return. So they went to the police station where they saw Murugan in custody. The respondent told them that the investigation of the case was not yet ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »