Chennai Court July 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. Karthikeyan and Others Vs. State by S.i. of Police and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2948
ORDER1. These two petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since the question raised is identical. 2. Both these petitions have been filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to call for the records in pending prosecutions and quash the proceedings therein as not maintainable on the sole ground that the investigating Agency had not followed the provisions of police, Standing Order (for short 'P.S.O.') 588A. 3. Facts in each of the petitions need not have to be stated, for, both the counsel fairly state that in respect of the same incident, two complaints had been given by opposite parties both of which resulted in final reports being filed by the investigating Agency. 4. The question, whether non-observance of the provisions of P.S.O. 588A would constitute illegality comes up for consideration quite often and it will be better to set at rest any controversy so that similar petitions canvassing this issue could be avoided in future. 5. All the decisions of this Court and a few of the ape...
Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. Perie D. Gonzaga and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ46
Mishra, J.1. This appeal is being disposed of after notice of motion.2. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 347 of 1977, Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore, has preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 93 of 1980 of a learned single Judge of this Court. 3. The case in the plaint in short is as follows : The properties set out in 'A' schedule in the plaint were the absolute properties of one Joseph D. Gonzaga. He married one Viyakula Mary alias Animal Kannu in or about the year 1914. Through her Joseph had five children of whom defendants 1 and 2 alone are alive. He, however, married another woman by name Roger in or about the year 1927. Through her he begot the third defendant. He died on 15.10.1956. The three defendants succeeded to the 'A' schedule properties left by him as tenants in common with equal rights. The first defendant, however, sold under a registered sale deed items 1 to 4 in 'A' Schedule (separately descri...
Glenrock Estates (P) Ltd. Represented by Its Director, K. Rajagopal Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ220
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1997 of 1991. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in the writ appeal Convenience suggests that the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition be adopted by us in the course of this judgment. The petitioners made an application for the grant of permission to cut 876 trees of various species in S. No. 284/1A of Cherangode village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris District, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forests Act 27 of 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The extent of the area over which these trees are located is stated to be 130 hectares. The cutting of the trees asked for, is by the selection method, namely felling of only selected trees of timber in contrast to the clear felling method, namely felling of all the trees in the area for the u...
A. Sundaram and Etc. Vs. Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3136
ORDER1. The accused in Cr. No. 9 of 1991 have filed these petitions under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to be interviewed by their advocate. 2. Brief facts are; The respondent has registered the case in Crime No. 9 of 1991 in connection with the murder of former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others. Originally the case was registered for offences under sections 302, 307 and 326, IPC and S. 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act. Later, on 31-5-1991; offence under S. 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was also added. Then again, on 12-7-1991, Sections 4 and 5 of the above Act were added as offences committed. A. Sundaram, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 5830 of 1991 was arrested on 2-7-1991 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput. Porarivalan, the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 5831 of 1991 was arrested on 18-6-1991 and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Chingleput....
Usmania Trust (Registered) Represented by Its Cheif Functionary-cum-ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ238
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner has come up to this Court to quash the order of the respondent dated 7.3.1990, refusing permission under Section 6(1A) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 for acceptance of foreign contribution amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs from the Islamic Development Bank, Jeddah.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are:The petitioner/trust was formed in terms of registered trust deed dated 5.1.1979 for establishing schools, hostels, etc., and encouraging Arabic language. It is a public charitable Trust and donations under Section 80-G to the trust are exempted from tax. The trust acquired about one acre of land in Podanur Road, Coimbatore, for establishing an educational Institution and construction of 7, 500 sq.ft. has been made, spending Rs. 12 lakhs received through donations from public. The trust wants to name the institution as 'Jamiathul Muhsinath Arabic College for Women', since it teaches women, tailoring, embroider...
N. Raman and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ81
ORDERRaju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the award dated 1.7.1987 made in I.D. No.1 of 1985 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The petitioners were all workers of the second respondent-mill which has been in existence since 1966. Originally, there was one trade union affiliated to the I.N.T.U.C. and in theyear 1982 another Union came into existence which was affiliated to the C.I.T.U. Except petitioners 10 and 12 who belonged to the I.N.T.U.C, the rest of the petitioners belonged to C.I.T.U. The question of workload and wages in the second respondent mill are covered by settlements, the last of which was the one dated 7.8.1978 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') with the I.N.T.U.C. Union. The said settlement was to be in force for a period of five years. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners that according to the 1978 settlement, the workload was on par with the ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Arun Sankar Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC545(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The Revenue is in revision against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22nd September, 1981. The controversy relates to the rate of tax on the sale turnover of tablets, stools, trays, etc., sold by the assessee to the match factories to the tune of Rs. 31,850. According to the assessee the rate of tax is at 4 per cent. The plea of the assessee was not accepted by the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held the rate of tax to be at 8 per cent treating the articles sold to fall under entry 121 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal, however, on second appeal by the assessee held that the tables, racks, trays etc., sold by the assessee to the match factories would not fall under entry 121 of the First Schedule and instead would be taxable at 4 per cent multipoint under section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Entry 121 of the First Schedule at the relevant time read as follows : 'Furniture of all kinds...
C. Krishnan Vs. Ponmudi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: I(1993)DMC502; (1992)IMLJ496
Abdul Hadi, J.1. The civil revision petition is by the husband who was the respondent in I.A. No. 254 of 1990 and the petitioner in H.M.O.P. No 168 of 1989. The H.M.O.P. is for divorce of the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. While the H.M.O.P. was pending, the abovesaid I.A. No. 254 of 1990 was filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming interim maintenance from the date of the said O.P. at the rate of Rs, 750 per month and for litigation expenses to the extent of Rs. 1,000. The Court below has granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 650 per month from the date of O.P. and has also granted the other prayer for litigation expenses as claimed. Against the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed by the husband.2. After going through the judgment, though I was not inclined to admit the C.R.P. on the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted...
The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department Vs. S. Rama Iyengar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ47
ORDERSrininvasan, J.1. The revision petition is against an order granting permission to sell certain properties under Section34 of the Indian Trusts Act. The petitioner herein is the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, who was not impleaded as a party to the original petition filed by the first respondent on coming to know of the Order. The petitioner on coming to know of the proceedings intervened as an objector to the original petition and contended that the petition under Section34 of the Indian Trusts Act was not maintainable. According to the petitioner, it is a religious trust and as such excluded from the purview of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.2. Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act expressly excludes the applicability of the Act to public or private religious or charitable endowments.3. The trust was created by one K. Srinivasan lyengar, father of respondents 1 and 2 herein, under a deed dated 25.10.1945. The relevant portions of the document read as follows:...
L and T Mcneil Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC175(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. The petitioner had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 20,44,683 and Rs. 5,10,790, respectively. Subsequently they wrote a letter on July 12, 1979, claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 14,35,770 representing the value of supply of machinery to M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., Trichy, as being a works contract. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority, the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. It is against such concurrent findings that the present revision has been filed. 2. Before us Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner produces the contract for the manufacture and supply of handling facilities for stainless steel tube project. The supply in this case relevant to an equipment called as stopper for lead crops and length cuts, he relies on clause III and XVI of the contract in support of his contention, that the contract was one for creation and not supply of goods. We will therefore do well to extract clauses III and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »