Chennai Court September 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.
Kairbetta Estates Syndicate Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: [1993]202ITR975(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner/assessee is engaged in the manufacture of tea. The Income-tax Officer, having finalised the assessment of the firm for the assessment year 1979-80, 60 per cent. of the income was taken as the income relating to agriculture within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer added to this the sale value of timber realised out of silver oak shade tress to the tune of Rs. 52,381. It is this turnover which is the subject-matter of the present revision. In the assessment order, there is a categorical averment that the turnover relates to the sale of trees 'not grown spontaneously but by human labour.' On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner also held that the shade trees were not grown solely for the purpose of giving shade to the tea plants and that threes were being felled at regular intervals and sold as firewood. The petitioners were again planting further trees in the area. Therefore, it was held that the sa...
P.N. Subramaniam and Others Vs. P.C. Chadaga, Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR910(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. This petition has been filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution in E. O. C. C. No. 997 of 1988, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E. O. II, Egmore, Madras is so far as it relates to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, in respect of whom alone this petition was admitted, as not maintainable and an abuse of process of the court. 2. These two petitioners along with three others are being prosecuted at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle II(2), Madras-34, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 120B, 193, 196, 420 and 511, I. P. C., and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. The only ground urged by Mr. A. Raghunathan, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the allegation in the complain would not be sufficient to issue process against the petitioners and merely quoting the provisions of the sectio...
Official Assignee, High Court Vs. the Inspector General of Registratio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ455
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. M/s. G.V.K.C. and Company and three others were adjudicated as insolvents on a creditor's petition by an order of this Hon'ble Court, dated 5.10.1976.2. Consequent on the vesting of the property in the Official Assignee, the properties of the second insolvent, G. Venkatasubba Rao measuring about 11 acres and 09 cents of agricultural lands situated at Kodavallivaripalam Village, Chirala Taluk, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and a house bearing Assessment No. 2835 in Vetapalam Village, Chirala Taluk, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh were brought to public auction on 12,6.1980 and again on 31.10.1984 for the second time. But the sale was not concluded. The second insolvent's son, Murali Mohan, the fourth respondent herein filed a partition suit in O.S. No. 46 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court at Chirala, Andhra Pradesh and after mutual deliberations and discussions, the fourth respondent had agreed to purchase the insolvent's undivided half share in those two ...
K. Selvaraj Vs. State by Inspector of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ571
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. In this petition, preferred under Section 482, Crl.P.C. invoking the inherent powers of this Court, the prayer is to call for the records in M.C. No. 3 of 1989 which culminated in the order dated 8th July, 1989, signed by the 4th respondent, the Executive I Class Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram on 10.7.1989 and the amended order in the same miscellaneous case dated 8.7.1989 and signed on 11.7.1989 and quash the entire proceedings therein, initiated under Section 145, Crl.P.C.2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are brothers, the petitioner being the elder. Their father Karuppasamy Gounder died on 15.1.1965. The family owned considerable landed property and during the life time of Karuppasamy Gounder, there was a partition, by means of a Registered Partition Deed, dated 30.11.1959, whereby Schedule B properties which are the subject matter of the present dispute, were allotted to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent was born subsequent to t...
P. Pon Kailasam, Saraswathi Narayanan College Vs. the Secretary, Saras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ55
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Tutor in the Department of Tamil in the 1st respondent College in the year 1971. The petitioner appeared for an interview before a Committee-held for the purpose of filling up a post of Assistant Professor in Tamil on 12.7.1975. When the College re-opened on 16.7.1975 after Summer Recess, the Principal of the College, by memo dated 16.7.1975 informed the petitioner that he (Principal) was shocked at the petitioner's behaviour towards him on the evening of 12.7.1975 and called upon the petitioner to explain why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the alleged behaviour of the petitioner towards the Principal. Then again, the Principal by another memo dated 21.7.1975 framed the charges specified therein and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. In the preamble portion of the said memo, it is stated that the petitioner was asked to show cause why the Principal should not report ...
R.R. Gopal Alias Rajagopal and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Cb Cid, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2087
ORDER1. The accused in Crime No. 22 of 1991 on the file of the respondent have filed this petition under S. 482, Criminal P.C. praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the same. 2. A Paneerselvam, Special Personal Assistant to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has given the complaint to the Inspector General of Police (Crimes), Madras-4. He had endorsed on it that a case may be registered and investigated and sent it to the respondent. The respondent has registered the case in Crime No. 22 of 1991 under Ss. 153-A(1)(b), 469, 471 read with Ss. 467 and 292(A), Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : In the Tamil Weekly 'Nakkeeran', dated 24-8-91 in the article under he heading 'Vernacular matter omitted' with sub-heading 'Vernacular matter omitted.' With the photo of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, a letter said to be written by Natarajan, addressed to the complainant is embodied. No such letter was addressed to him or received by ...
Peter Vs. S. Yesudhas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3123
ORDER1. The Ist accused in C.C. No. 944 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in the abovesaid calendar case and quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a private complaint against four accused and the petitioner herein is the Ist accused. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : On 12-9-1986, the Ist accused entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of St. Peters R. C. Primary School and the appurtenant site and that agreement was reduced into writing. On that day, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as advance and the sale price was agreed as Rs. 2,60,000/- and the balance of sale price was agreed to be paid within three months from the date of the agreement. On 28-10-1986, the Ist accused sent a telegram to the complainant, asking him to meet him on 10-11-1986. On 3-11-1986, the complainant sent a telegram to the Ist accused sta...
N. Sivadasan Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act-i, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ794Mad; (1993)IMLJ212
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent relating to Payment of Gratuity Appeal No. 30/80 dated October 31, 1990 confirming the 2nd respondent's order in P.G. Case No. 252/79 dated December 5, 1979 and quashing the same in so far as it denies the petitioner from receiving full gratuity and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 247.50 towards the balance of gratuity award. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition can be stated as follows : The writ petitioner herein filed a petition before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in which both parties made an endorsement to the effect that the parties agree about the services of the applicant as six yeas and the parties agree that the applicant's last drawn wages in cash is Rs. 45 p.m. The contention of the petitioner was that the cash equivalent...
K. Nandakumar Vs. Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ1095
A. Abdul Hadi, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal by the claimant is against the dismissal of his M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 773 of 1988 of the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes), Madras.2. In the said claim petition the appellant-petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the ground that he was injured in the motor accident that took place on 15.11.1987 at 9.45 p.m. According to him, he was going on a motor cycle, east to west on the road in question and the respondent's bus TML 8774 came from the opposite direction and hit against his motor cycle and caused severe injuries to him and despite the fact that he had to take treatment as in-patient till 2.12.1987, he remained handicapped and disabled etc., the respondent Corporation denied that its driver was negligent and contended that only the appellant was negligent. Though the Tribunal observed that if compensation could be awarded to the claimant, it could be fixed at Rs. 50,90...
Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sathiapal and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ303
Mishra, J.1. This Appeal has arisen out of a proceeding under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act in Application No. 5374 of 1988 and O.P.No.129 of 1981 on the Original Side of this Court. The Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Limited (appellant and M/s. Sathiapal and Company, a partnership firm represented by its partner, S. Sathiapal, carrying on business in the city of Madras (first respondent) had fallen in dispute with respect to a works contract for(1) Lime stone crusher Building vide agreement No. 36/77-78, dated 10.10.1977.(2) Sub Station building vide agreement No. 50/77-78 dated 28.12.1977.(3) Central Control Room Building, vide agreement No. 14/78-79, dated 22.7.1978; and(4) Lime stock piles construction, vide agreement No. 77/78-79, dated 29.11.1978.2. The dispute, with the agreement of the parties, was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties with the second respondent Mr. S.P. Namasivayam, an Engineer, as the Arbitrator ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »