Chennai Court April 1993 Judgments
Fourth Income-tax Officer, City Circle Iii Vs. A.K. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1994)117CTR(Mad)322; [1994]205ITR205(Mad)
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two appeals are directed by the offences under sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, and for nor awarding the minimum sentence as per law for the offence under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in E.O.C.C. No. 2222 of 1982 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences II), Madras. The respondent in both the appeals, who is the accused in the case, was prosecuted by the Income-tax Department under six charges - the first charge is under section 420 read with section 511, Indian Penal Code; the second charge is under section 193, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the third charge is under section 196, Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fourth charge is under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the fifth charge is under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sixth charge is also under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, on the allega...
Tag this Judgment!Devagiri Plantations Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ193
Thangamani, J.1. The appellants instituted O.S. No. 183 of 1981 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Nagercoil against the respondent State Government for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit items. The appellants based their claim to the properties on Ex. A-l the sale deed dated 12.3.1952 executed by one C.H. Simpson. Ex.A-25 is the photostat copy of the plaint appended to the sale deed. The sale deed covers an extent of 550 acres including the southern portion of old Survey No. 2902 and a major part of old Survey No. 2905 described as item 1 in the plaint schedule. Old Survey Nos. 2904 and 2907 described as item 2 in the plaint schedule are not expressly included in the sale deed. The case of the appellants regarding item 2 is that though these two survey numbers do not find a place in Ex.A-1, they come within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. The Government resisted the action contending that item 2 is a poramboke land. The trial court after an elab...
Tag this Judgment!State by Assistant Inspector of Labour Vs. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ342
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. These appeals arise out of the orders of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Namakkal, reversing the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramathi in S.T.C. Nos. 580,581 and 582 of 1984.2. The respondent was prosecuted for the violation of the provisions of Rule 11 (5) read with Rule 16(b) and Rule 16(4)(i) and Rule 4 (A) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Rules.3. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion, on the evidence, that the respondent committed offences and convicted him and sentenced him in all the cases. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred the appeals. The learned appellate Judge allowed the appeals in all these three cases, holding that the Shops and Establishments Act is not applicable to Sri Lakshmi Finance Corporation, of which the accused is an employer.4. Since common question is involved, by consent, these appeals are clubbed together and disposed of. Further, since notic...
Tag this Judgment!East West Exporters Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1993
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC185; 1993(68)ELT319(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. As the points involved in these writ appeals are common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These writ appeals arise out of the common order of the learned Single Judge made in W. P. Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1993, directing that the goods in each of the cases should be allowed to be cleared within 10 days from the date of payment of 50% of the duty in each case plus Bank Guarantee for 25% of the duty and a personal bond for the balance of 25%. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their array in the writ petitions. 3. The petitioners in W. P. Nos. 1012 and 1013 of 1993 are two firms engaged in the business of export of readymade garments and import of cognate good and the facts in both the writ petitions are identical. The petitioners have purchased a Value Based Advance Licence from one M/s. Rajendra Enterprises. The purchase was only for part of the value of the licence to an extent of Rs. 11,75,000/-in each cas...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai and ors. Vs. the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ419
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The earlier writ petition has been filed by 12 persons for issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records in the proceedings culminating in the order dated 14.3.1990 made in G.O.Ms. No. 453 on the file of the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department affirming the order dated 20.4.1976 passed by the Land Commissioner and Settlement Officer which in turn affirmed the order dated 31.1.1975 passed by the Director of Survey and Settlement, Madras-5, quashing the same and directing respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the holdings in T.S. No. 113, Block No. 52, Ward 'H', corresponding to O.D.T.S. No. 2210 measuring about 62 cents and the superstructures standing thereon except in accordance with law. The later writ petition is filed by the Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee, Salem, for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 453, dated 14.3.1990 a...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadambal and anr. Vs. T.E. Varadhan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ446
Bellie, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit O.S. No. 789 of 1979, and the civil revision petition arises out of LA. No. 1367 of 1980 in that suit.2. The suit was filed by the landlord for eviction of the first defendant-tenant and also the second defendant-subtenant from the suit premises, and also for damages for use and occupation of the premises after the termination of tenancy. The first defendant-tenant filed I.A. No. 1367 of 1980 contending that he has put up the superstructure in the plaintiffs land and therefore under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, he is entitled to purchase the land for the value to be fixed by the court. This application was resisted by the plaintiffs contending inter alia that the landlord let out to the first defendant the land together with the building thereon and therefore no question of claiming benefit by the first defendant under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act arises.3. The tria...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. S. Kathiresan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ383a
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in LA. No. 2538 of 1991 in O.S. No. 348 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppur, in which the learned District Munsif has allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. praying for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit properties and file his plan with report.2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties and injunction. The suit properties are the lands as well as a well. It is opposed by the defendants, namely, the revision petitioners herein. While so, the respondent had filed I.A. No. 2533 of 1991 praying for appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to file a plan with his report and it was opposed by the revision petitioners herein and after hearing the parties, the learned District Munsif has passed an order allowing the petition and appointing an ad...
Tag this Judgment!iruthayasamy Vs. Janakammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ382
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 636 of 1991 in O.S. No. 365 of 1987 attaching the salary of the revision petitioner herein in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 365 of 1987.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the decree passed in O.S. No. 365 of 1987 is an ex parte decree, that the revision petitioner who is the defendant in the court below has already filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and has also filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the petition and a conditional order was passed, but due to the reasons which according to him was valid, the cost was not paid within time and so the petition was dismissed and now again he has filed a petition for restoring the same and the petition is pending enquiry before the court below and in the circumstances, attachment granted by the court below in this E.P. is not correct.3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Hotels Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1993
Reported in: (1993)46TTJ(Mad)685
ORDERBY THE BENCH :This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order in revision passed by the CIT, Tamil Nadu III, Madras, on 15th Jan., 1987 in relation to the asst. yr. 1983-84. Two issues arise for consideration in this appeal; and they are : (a) Whether the assessee-hotel is entitled to extra depreciation under Appendix-I, Part I, item III(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962, and (b) Whether the assessee is entitled to extra-shift allowance in respect of plant and machinery.2. When this appeal earlier came up for hearing before a Division Bench, the learned Members of that Bench were of the opinion that the appeal is fit and proper appeal which should be heard by a Special Bench consisting of three Members of the Tribunal, in view of the fact that the decision of the Tribunal, Madras Bench C in the case of M/s. Covelong Beach Hotel (India) Ltd., Madras (vide order dt. 17th July, 1986 in ITA No. 1871/Mad/85; Asst. yr. 1982-83) to the effect that the assessee-hotel therein was not en...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Selvam Vs. Santhosham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ195
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders of dismissal passed in two applications filed in O.S No. 157 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri, for reopening the case and for recalling P.W.4 and examining him.2. Mr. T. Srinivasa Raghavan, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that earlier an application was filed by the revision petitioner for examining the commissioner appointed by court as P.W.4 and that was allowed and since at that time the commissioner was not available for tendering evidence, the revision petitioner could not produce him as a witness and so later on when the commissioner was available for tendering evidence, revision petitioner wanted to examine him to tender further evidence, which would throw light on the case, and so the revision petitioner filed petition for reopening the case and recalling him as a witness but the court below, has rejected her claim. The learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »