Chennai Court June 1992 Judgments
State by the Sub-inspector of Railway Protection Force Vs. Radhakrishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1457
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Katpadi registered a case in Crime No. 17/80 for an alleged offence under S. 3(1) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act (for short 'the Act') and took up further investigation. 2. The subject matter of theft is Golkonda Brandy bottles belonging to the Railways. He happened to arrest Mohan (accused 1) and he is stated to have given a voluntary confession statement to him implicating himself and others, namely, Radhakrishnan (accused 2), Rajason (accused 3) and Chinnappan (accused 4) and one Gajendran (since deceased). The deceased Gajendran was also stated to have given a voluntary confession, implicating himself and the rest of the accused in the crime. Accused 1, pursuant to the confession was said to have pointed out accused 3 and 4 and from the lands belonging to them, it is said, the stolen properties, namely, Golkonda Brandy bottles, which were stated to have been kept concealed underneath, have been recovered...
Tag this Judgment!New Ambadi Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR874(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner before this court. For the assessment year 1980-81, the petitioner appears to have failed a return under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the rules made thereunder, disclosing a net agricultural income of Rs. 28,72,934. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer-II, Nagercoil, on going through the accounts and considering the various claims for deduction, determined the net assessable income at Rs. 34,35,514 and the total tax due for the said assessment year from the assessee at Rs. 22,33,084.10. 2. Aggrieved against the action of the assessing authority in disallowing certain deductions claimed, an appeal has been preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Nagercoil. The first appellate authority partly allowed the appeal by sustaining deductions claimed on certain accounts and in other respects dismissed the appeal. 3. The assessee pursued the matter on further...
Tag this Judgment!Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC399; 1993ACJ1259
V. Ratnam, J.1. In this appeal, at the instance of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, in M.C.O.P. No. 128 of 1988, the two questions which arise for consideration are:(1) whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the rash and negligent driving of the bus No. TML 8630 belonging to the appellant, by its driver, caused the accident on 7.1.1988, in which the respondent sustained injuries, and (2) whether, in respect of the injuries so sustained by the respondent, the Tribunal was justified in awarding to him compensation in a sum of Rs. 35,750/- together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment.2. There is no dispute now that in an accident that took place on 7.1.1988, involving the bus No. TML 8630, near the entrance to the Broadway Bus Stand, the respondent, who was a passenger in that bus, sustained certain in...
Tag this Judgment!L.V. Bhujanga Rao Vs. Ch. Venkateswara Rao and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad246
ORDER1. The applicant/plaintiff has filed the Applications Nos. 660 to 662 of 1991 under Order XIV, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code for the relief of an interim injunction restraining the Garnishee-Bank viz., the second respondent from allowing the first respondent to withdraw the amounts or deposit the amounts in S.B. Account No. 19466 at the second respondent hank in the name of the first respondent, pending disposal of the suit; for attaching the property of the first respondent, before judgment, more fully described in the Judge's summons in O.A. Nos. 661 of 1991 and restraining the first respondent from withdrawing any amounts now in the S.B. Account of the first respondent, bearing No. 19447 (HUF) in the hands of the Garni-shee, the second respondent herein by means of temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit.2. The short facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the case in hand as culled out from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Super Rubber Works Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC23; 1992(62)ELT498(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 1-6-1984. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows :- The petitioner is carrying on business as manufacturer of reclaimed rubber. His product was classified by the Assistant collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore as one falling under Tariff Item 68. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, who accepted the petitioner's contention and held that the products would fall under Tariff Item 16-A. The department filed an appeal before the Tribunal at Delhi. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Appellate Collector on two grounds. The Tribunal relied on the report of a Chemical Examiner in which a finding is given by the Chemical Examiner that the product will not fall under Tariff Item 16-A. Secondly, the Tribunal held that the order passed by it on ...
Tag this Judgment!isacc Judsen Vs. the Union Tettitory of Pondicherry and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad116
ORDER1. The former writ petition is for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the treasures set out in the petition or to pay just compensation to the petitioner under the provisions of the Indian Treasure Trove Act, 1878. The latter writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent namely, the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry, in No. 2207/ A4/ 84, dated 15-6-90 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to hand over the treasure to the petitioner.2. Facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are as follows:-- The petitioner was employed as Bulldozer Operator in the Agricultural Department of Pondichery. On 1-12-1971 during the levelling operation of the land bearing S. No. 31/1/2 of Sialam Village, the petitioner found 6 idols hiding in the land belonging to one Varada Reddiar, Thirupuvanai. The Deputy Collector (Revenue), Pondicherry, as Collector u...
Tag this Judgment!Murugesan and Another Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ2565
1. The accused 1 and 2 are son and father respectively. The first accused was charged for an offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. The second accused was charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27-9-1985 the first accused murdered his wife by severing her head at Nanjaiyaidaiyar Village and caused her death and that his father A-2 abetted A-1 in committing the murder of his wife. P.W. 1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Nanjaiyidaiyar Village. His evidence is that on 27-9-85 at about 1 p.m. A-1 came to him and gave a confessional statement to the effect that his wife was having illicit intimacy with a teacher by name Ramanuja Iyer, that his wife went away with the said teacher on the previous day and that the first accused brought her back, that on 27-9-1985 his wife was making arrangements to go along with the said teacher and she was adamant in her action and so the first accused took ou...
Tag this Judgment!P. Andree Vs. the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ57
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council with effect from 1.7.1988. It is stated that since the Medical Council of India did not recognise Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Porur, Tamil Nadu, the petitioner intimated the Dean of Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute on 7.3.1990 that the Medical Council of India did not recognise the said Medical College. The 2nd respondent then informed the petitioner to ignore the letter dated 16.2.1990 of the Medical Council of India and wanted the petitioner to issue temporary medical registration Certificate to the students who had undergone the course in Sri Ramachandra Medical College. The petitioner in reply informed the 2nd respondent that it would not be in order to issue temporary medical registration certificate. However, the 2nd respondent insisted upon the petitioner to issue such a certificate to the students, presumably for the reason that the students of the said Coll...
Tag this Judgment!S. Annamalai Vs. Dr. E. Soundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad38
1. In this second appeal by the defendant the only point argued was that Ex. A.-3 sale deed is forgery. The trial Court held that it was forgery but the appellate Court dissented from that and held that it is genuine and true document. The sale deed came to be executed in the following circumstances.One Anthoni Devasagayam executed an Othi deed Ex. A-1 dated 21-6-1986 in favour of one Lakshmiammal for a sum of Rupees 3,000/- Lakshmiammal assigned the Othi to one Valliammal on 19-3-1973 and Valli-ammal assigned it to the defendant under Ex. A-2 on 7-4-1974. 2. According to the plaintiff he purchased the property for Rs. 10,000/- under Ex. A3dated 21-12-83 from Devasagayam. The plaintiff wrote to the defendant offering to pay the Othi amount and redeem the suit property but the defendant evaded. The plaintiff filed a petition in O.P. No. 71 of 1984 under S- 83 of the Transfer of Property Act for depositing the othi amount into Court and deposited the sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 25-4-1984, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Pulverising Mills Limited Madras Vs. the Joint Director of Agri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad74; (1992)IIMLJ511
ORDER1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of insecticides. The Agricultural Officer (Quality Control) of the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Papana-sam, took a sample of Plan Protection Chemical Monocrotophos 36% from the shop of the petitioner's dealer located at No. 37, Gandhi Road, Kumbakonam, only one sample of the insecticides was taken and sent to the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Aduthurai, for analysis and the Assistant Agricultural Chemist, Aduthurai, submitted his report stating that the contents showed 238 ml. as against 250 ml. declared on the label and his report disclosed that it was 'misbranded'. Based on this report, the first respondent herein, passed the order appealed against,directing the suspension of the manufacturing licence No. 9/1972 of the petitioner for a period of 10 days from 16-12-90 to 25-12-1990. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who is the Director of Agric...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »