Chennai Court December 1993 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.
M.Y. Maharishi Vs. Tagore Financiers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas444(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 22637 of 1989, on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in the said C.C. No. 22637 of 1989. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereafter refer to as 'the Act'), on the allegations that the accused sent three cheques dated August 28, 1989, September 15, 1989, and September 30, 1989, for Rs. 50,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively, in part payment of the loan due by him and requested the complainant to present the cheque for encashment on October 17, 1989, and accordingly, the complainant presented the cheques on October 17, 1989. Three cheques were returned with an endorsement 'refer to drawer'. He came to know about the dishonour on November 4, 1989. The complainant sent a registered ...
A. Loganathan and Others Vs. A. Loganathan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: [1995]214ITR202(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. The common prayer in all these writ petitions is for the issue of a writ of declaration, declaring that section 2(2) of the Finance Act, 1977, is ultra vires and illegal. 2. Though different assessees have filed these petitions, the respondents are common and arguments addressed by both sides were also common. Hence, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The points raised in the affidavit filed in support of these cases are identical and as a sample, the grounds raised in Writ Petition No. 324 of 1980 alone need be looked into. Paragraphs Nos. 12, 14 and 16 of the affidavit read as follows : '12. It is submitted that the pith and substance of the Finance Act is to levy tax on agricultural income. This has been made clear from the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for 1973-74 reported in : [1973]88ITR39(Ker) . The provision for aggregation of agricultural income with non-agricultural income was introduced by the Finance Act, 1973, and it appears from...
R. Manickathammal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC71
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of matches. She pays the excise duty under tariff item No. 38, of the Central Excise, under which a duty of Rs. 1.60 for every gross of 50's matches, is payable. Under notification 22/82 issued under the Central Excise Rules, the petitioner had been availing of a concessional rate of duty because her manufacture and removal of matches was within the ceiling limit of 15 million matches per month. On the basis of certain verifications made by the officers of the respondents, it was noticed that there were alterations and erasures in the figures noted in the R.G.I Register. The case of the respondents is that those erasures and alterations were for the purpose of availing of the said notification No. 22 of 1982. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued by the third respondent stating that the R.G.I Registers which were corrected by the petitioner had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on the basis of their fi...
Dhana Singh Vs. Mrs. Stella and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ253
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal is taken up with the consent of counsel on both sides. It is directed against an order dated 6.5.1992 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras, in M.P.No.1067 of 1991 in M.C.No.335 of 1988.2. M.C.No.335 of 1988 was a petition for maintenance under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the respondent herein, the first respondent being the wife of the petitioner and the second respondent being his son, who was minor at the time of filing of the petition. The court below passed the order on 17.6.1989 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 to the first respondent herein and Rs. 300 to the second respondent herein with effect from 3.11.1988. The respondents herein filed M.P.No.1067 of 1991 stating that no amount of maintenance has been paid, excepting a sum of Rs. 7,210 which was paid pursuant to an order of attachment made in M.P.No.612 of 1989. That petition, M.P.No.612 of 1989 was disposed of on 15.10.1991. The present ...
P. Shanmugaiah Vs. V. Balamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ41
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 18 of 1989 on the file of Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Srivilliputhur confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Sattur.2. Short facts are : The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1988 against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default and requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:The respondent is tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 200 payable on the last day of every Tamil Month for the purpose of manufacturing matches only. The lease was oral. The respondent wilfully omitted to pay the rent from Avani (17.8.1986) to the end of Purattasi (17.10.1987) for a period of fourteen months. The petitioner sent notice terminating the tenancy on 26.10.1987. The respondent returned the notice on 30.10.1987. On 7.11.1987, the respondent sent a c...
Anand Loganathan Vs. Dharambir Nanda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas354(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in C.C. Nos. 302, 303, and 314 of 1992, on the file of the judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The allegations in the complaint in C.C. No. 302 of 1992, are briefly as follows : The complainant and the accused were partners. The complainant was forced to retire from the firm. A deed of dissolution was executed on January 10, 1992. The total amount due to the complainant was Rs. 1,44,000. The accused agreed to give the same and issued cheques dated January 10, 1992, January 31, 1992, February 15, 1992, March 1, 1992, and March 31, 1992, for various amounts. The complainant presented the cheque dated January 10, 1992. It was dishonoured for want of funds. The accused instructed the complainant to re-present the same. The complainant presented the same on a later date and it was di...
B.S. Hallan Vs. Shasi B. Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas349(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J. 1. The accused in CC. No. 96 of 1993, on the file of the Judicial magistrate, Coonoor, has filed this petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows : For the amount due to the complaint, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 60,000 on the favour of the complainant on January 23, 1993. When it was presented for encashment it was returned with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. The complement apprised that caused about the dishonour of the cheque and as per the request he represented the cheque for encashment. It was returned with an endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The accused has issued a cheque to the complaint with full knowledge that ...
Perumal Pillai and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), the Union Territ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ428
ORDERMishra, J.1. Two brothers have together moved this Court questioning the provisional notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the declaration under Section 6 thereof, relating to the acquisition of an extent of 26acres out of a total extent of 3 hectares 42 acres, 40 meentiare (ca) in R.S. No. 70/6. The petitioners responded and filed their objections in the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. According to them, the land sought to be acquired is agricultural land and they are small farmers having a large family of eight members. The entire family depends only on the land for their livelihood as such the acquisition has been in the teeth of a Government Circular bearing No. LA/SE/79/B/Rev., Revenue Department, Pondicherry, dated 8.7.1979, wherein the State Government have stressed that fertile agricultural lands should not be enquired and if such acquisition is necessary lands should be acquired from big landlords and ...
Sivanandiia Steels Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1993
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)569
ORDERRAJH 4 J.By consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.2. These batch of writ petitions have been filed by different assessees majority of them under the IT Act, praying for writs of declaration to declare the provisions contained in ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act. Separate writ petitioners challenging the orders passed by the CBDT, Ministry of Finance or the respective IT0s who passed orders of assessment levying interest under one or the other of the provisions referred to above have also been filed.3. Though several issues have been raised challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions themselves, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confined their submissions to the grievance based on the violation of the principles of natural justice and denial of an effective opp61Wnity to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders to their detriment. Having regard to the nature of the orders passed on the dir...
Mrs. Saroj Goenka and Others Vs. Nariman Point Building Services and T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: (1994)IMLJ583; (1997)90CompCas205(Madras)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated October 15, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in A.A.O. No. 1017 of 1993 which was preferred against the order dated July 14, 1993, passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in C.P. No. 40 of 1993. The Company Law Board, by the aforesaid order, restrained all the respondents in Company Petition No. 40 of 1993 from giving effect to any transfer or any transmission of shares in the said companies and also from increasing the issued and paid-up share capital in any manner whatsoever. They were also further restrained from disposing of or encumbering their fixed assets or investment except in the normal course of business. The company, in which petitioner No. 1 was a director, was also restrained from holding any board meetings till the date of the next hearing, without giving at least three days notice to the first petitioner either by registered A.D. post or through courier servi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »