Chennai Court February 1992 Judgments
Madras Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT6(Mad)
ORDER1. This Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 25-9-1989 and made herein and the records relating to the order in Notification 39/89-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-8-1989 on the file of the 3rd Respondent comprised in the return of the said respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. K. Mylsamy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents the Court made the following order - The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings in the Notification No. 39/89-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 25-8-1989 of the 3rd respondent and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to avail the credit of Rs. 15,88,336.63 earned and accrued to it in R.G. 23-B, Part II. 2. The petitioner company is carrying on business of ma...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidehi Vs. I. Gopinath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad315; I(1994)DMC379
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the mother of the detenus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent-husband to produce the minor children, Madhulika aged 9 years and Anirudh aged 6 years, before this Court and set them at liberty by handing them over to the petitioner.2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition is briefly as follows: The petitioner and her husband, the respondent, were married on 18th January, 1981 at Madras. Out of the lawfuld wedlock, she has given birth to two children, namely, daughter Madhulika aged 9 years and son Anirudh aged 6 years. She was residing with the respondent and the two children in a flat in Gandhi Nagar, Madras. Some time back the respondent and she hadmarital problems and their relationship deteriorated and finally she was driven out of the flat by the respondent on the night of October 25, 1991. Ever ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbaraj and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ627
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. This writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Order Rt. No. 124, Housing Department, dated 8.5.1975, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11.6.1975, of the file of the first respondent and also the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioners bearing survey Nos. 94, part 95,96/2A, 96/2B, 98/1,92/2,103/1,103/2 and 105 measuring in all 5.57 acres in Nerkundram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District etc.2. The petitioners have raised the following grounds:(i) The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 11.6.1975 and the substance of the notification published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette was not published in the village Panchayat office and other convenient places. According to Rule 1 of the rules framed under Section 55(1) of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. G. D. Naidu Industrial Educatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1992
Reported in: [1942]10ITR358(Mad)
.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Honble the Chief Justice).On the 24th January 1938 one G. D. Naidu, a gentleman largely interested in motor engineering and transport companies in the Combatore District, created the G. D. Naidu Industrial Eduacational Trust and purported to endow it with the shares held by him in six transport companies of which he had the contol and immovalbe property worth Rs. 1,10,000. Mr. Naidu Constitutted himsef the managing trustee of the trust and gave himself full power to deal with its assets This reference arises out of aclaim made under Section 4 (3) (i) of the Indian Income-tax paid in respect of dividends declard on the shares held in these trasport comapnies. the Income-tax aauthorities refused to allow arefund. Their reason was that the shares were not held under trust wholly for charitable purposes within the meaning of the section. The managing trustee having asked the Commmisner of Income-tax Act, the Commissioner has referred this questi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›