Chennai Court January 1992 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.
P. Madhavan Vs. Binny Limited Represented by Its General Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ1
S. Nainar Sundaram, Actg. C.J.1. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 14193 of 1991 is the appellant is this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. It will be convenient for us if we refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition in the course of this judgment of ours.2. Before we come to the points urged in this writ appeal on behalf of the petitioner, it is better that we delineate certain factual features which are not in dispute. The petitioner entered the service of the respondent as a clerk on 7.11.1969. In 1985, an occasion arose for the appointment of Labour Welfare Officers in the service of the respondent. Suffice it to point out at this juncture that the statutory formalities with reference to the filling up of the posts were gone through and the petitioner was one of the appointees as a Labour Welfare Officer. Since much has been said both ways on the terms and conditions of appointment, we deem it necessary to ext...
S.A.R. Somasundaram Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR26(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. In this petition preferred under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the prayer is to call for the records and to quash the pending prosecution in C. C. No. 555 of 1989, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, initiated on a private complaint by the respondent, alleging commission of offences by the petitioner punishable under section 193, 196, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The allegations in the complaint show that, in pursuance of a raid in the house of the petitioner, concealment of income to the tune of Rs. 17,00,000 was discovered. On that basis, this prosecution was initiated. 3. Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had filed his return, which is stated to contain false particulars, before the Income-tax Officer, Circle (I)(1), Salem, and if that be so, to prosecute the petitioner under sectio...
A. Shanmugha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. P.V. Rajagopal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ416
Abdul Hadi, J.1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1981 in O.S.No.122 of 1977 on the file of Sub Court, Kancheepuram, decreeing the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein and thereby setting aside Ex.A-2 appellate order dated 24.3.1977 of the 1st defen-dant-2nd respondent herein (The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.) in A.P.No.29 of 1976 on his file and also the original order in O.A.No.37 of 1974, dated 18.5.1974 passed by the 2nd defendant 3rd respondent herein (The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.). The said suit was filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Originally the abovesaid Deputy Commissioner initiated suo mom action to modify the scheme relating to the suit temple, of which the plaintiff claimed to be the hereditary trustee. The Deputy Commissioner sought to so modify under Section 64(5)(b) of the said Act. T...
S.P. Nagarathinam Vs. Sub-divisional Magistrates and Sub-collector, Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1285
ORDER1. Counter petitioner No. 2 of 'B' party in MC. 117/90 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Thanjavur, has filed this petition under S. 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in the aforesaid case and quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the above proceedings on 31-12-90. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are : The Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Thanjavur West Police Station, Thanjavur, had filed F.I.R. No. 1678/90, dated 1-11-90 in Crime No. 1404/90 under S. 145, Criminal Procedure Code against counter petitioners A and B parties. On that complaint, both the counter petitioners were directed to put in written statements of their respective claims concerning the fact of actual possession of the disputed site. Accordingly, they had examined Mathivanan and Srinivasan. 'B' party had examined Jayapal and Suriyamoorthy. The Sub-Inspector was also examined. Both the parties have filed the documents in sup...
V.M. Dakshinamoorthy Mudaliar Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR946(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioner has come up to this court praying for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the record of the petitioner on the file of the first respondent TR. Nos. 815 to 819/1984-85 34 to 38/1987-88 and No. 6/11/1989-90 and quash the impugned order dated December 17, 1991, and consequently, direct the respondents to grant the certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner entered into an agreement with his own sons for sale of the ground situate in No. 9, Greenways Road, Madras-28, for a sum of Rs. 14 lakhs and filed an application under section 230A of the Income-tax Act requesting them to grant a certificate for the purpose of the income-tax. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner, has come up to this court in Writ Petition No. 2895 of 1989. After taking of notice by Mr. C. K. Rajan, learned counsel for the Income-tax Department, and by consent of both parties, S. Ramalingam J., by order March 22, 1989, in the afores...
Mrs. Kundanbai Vs. Mr. Parameswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad309
ORDER1. Mrs. Kundanbai, Proprietrix, Industrial Engineering Insulation Company is the petitioning creditor. The respondent is the debtor to the petitioning creditor. Thepetitioner has filed this insolvency petition under Ss. 9, 12 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to pass an order of adjudication, adjudicating the respondent as insolvent and for other consequential relief.2. The petitioning creditor is a proprietary concern which deals in copper cables and other allied products. They supplied copper cables, rods, ingots and other materials received from its principals to various manufacturers of transformers and other allied electrical equipments for the State of Tamil Nadu and one such suppliers of raw materials required for the manufacture of transformers namely of the respondent is that of the petitioner. The petitioner was approached by the respondent for the supply of various gauges of copper cables, wires, rods etc., for the manufa...
V. Balachandran Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas67(Mad)
Mishra J.1. The petitioner herein, who was enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in 1975 and who has been practising as an advocate in this court for the last 15 years, has filed the instant petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Company Law Board Members (Qualifications and Experience) Rules, 1989*, hereinafter called 'the impugned Rules,' brought into force by G. S. R. No. 740(E) dated August 4, 1989. He has, however, also sought a declaration that the provisions of section 10E(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956), are illegal, void and ultra vires the Constitution of India. 2. Two sections, viz., section 10E and 10F, were inserted as part I-A into the Companies Act, 1956, (Act 1 of 1956), by section 4 of the Companies (Amendment) Act (53 of 1963), with effect from January 1, 1964, only to be amended in some parts by the Companies (Amendment) Act No. 41 of 1941 and by Act No. 46 of 1977 and by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988. Since the...
V. Maruthamuthu Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC315; 1992(60)ELT208(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. R. Thamizhmani for M/s. Narman Associates, advocates for the petitioner, in each of the petitions and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Second Respondent the court made the following order :- These writ petitions have been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of a duty of Rs. 6,63,948.06 and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the petitioner under the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, dated 20-5-1991. 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by me on 20-12-1991. Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents. 3. When the petitioners came before the Tribunal the Tribunal has passed the impugned order even after taking note of the fact stated by the first respondent...
N.R. Abdul Azeez and Others Vs. E. Sundaresa Chettiar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad169; (1992)IMLJ535
1. There is a dilapidated mosque like structure in S. No. 187 ofSheik Manyam in Vanagaram village, Saidapet, Chingleput, District. This building with the land appurtenant thereto measuring about 17,000 sq. ft. south of cart track, north of poramboke land, east of part of S.No. 187 and west of tank is the subject matter of the second appeal. The entire S.No. 187 before sub division comprised of an extent of 51 acres 17 cents. Ex.B.3 the Extract from the Registrar of Inams in the village of Vanakaram discloses that this extent was originally granted to one Kayarunnissa as a personal Inam. Subsequently one Haji Mohammed Abdul Khadi Basha Sahib became the owner of this property. Under Ex.B.4 dated 23-9-1898 he settled this land in favour of his minor son Mohammed Habibulla Basha Sahib. The donee sold away the property to one Anniah Naidu under Ex.B.5 the registered sale deed dated 15-3-1917. Subsequently Anniah Naidu became insolvent and this property was sold, by the Official Assignee of ...
Kadarkarai Reddiar Vs. Arumugam Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Mad346
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the dismissal of his suit O.S. No. 523 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The suit is for recovery of Rupees 10,000/- as principal with interest due on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant.2. The case of the plaintiff as found in the plaint is that he lent Rs. 10,000/- to the defendant on 5-10-1975 and obtained from him a promissory note, wherein he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with principal on demand, that the defendant did not choose to discharge the promissory note in spite of the plaintiff's written demand by notice dated 6-10-79 and that the suit is filed belatedly only in view of the operation of stay and bar of suit against the defendant by virtue of Act 15 of 1976.3. The plea in the written statement may be summarised as follows: The defendant borrowed only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- from the plaintiff and signed two blank papers affixed with stamps as a result of compulsi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »