Chennai Court August 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.
J. Ranganathan, Second Income-tax Officer Vs. M.S. Bhavani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR600(Mad)
N. Arumugham, J.1. The petitioners in both the applications are the complainants before the Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Poonamallee, before whom they have filed two complaints against the respondent/accused who is one and the same person alleging the offences under sections 193, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upon doing so, cognizance of the said offences was taken by the learned magistrate in two different cases, namely, in C.C. Nos. 152 of 1984 and 153 of 1984. While the said case were pending before him at the stage above referred to - challenging the same and to quash both the cases, quash proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code were filed on behalf of the accused/respondent herein in this court. But, however, both resulted in total rejection. Consequently, the matter was about to be taken for trial. At this stage, it appears that a petition under section 245(2) of the Criminal Pr...
D. Vijayan and anr. Vs. V.K. Arumugam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ70
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their I.A. No. 6274 of 1993 for amending their plaint in O.S. No. 10966 of 1989 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said suit seeks permanent injunction against interference of their possession of the suit building. The proposed amendment seeks possession relief in the place of injunction relief.2. Their averments in the said application are as follows: In I.A. No. 12690 of 1989, they got temporary injunction which has been confirmed by the first appellate court in C.M.A. No. 28 of 1990 and by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1826 of 1990. But the defendants respondents filed C.S. No. 659 of 1990 in this Court for declaration of title to the same suit land on the footing that the property was different. The said defendants also got temporary injunction against the plaintiffs herein on 6.8.1990. But subsequently on the filing of O.S.A. No. 85 of 1991 in th...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1993
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ526
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 16.9.1991 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6001 of 1990, 14396, 15994 and 15995 of 1988. W.A. Nos. 28 to 31 of 1992 are by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Sub Collector, Coimbatore against the common order dated 16.9.1991 by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 6001 of 1990, 14396, 15994, 15995 of 1988. Whereas W.A. Nos. 37 to 40 of 1992 are also preferred against the very same order by V.L.B. Trust, Kuniamuthur, Coimbatore District for whose benefit the acquisition in question is made. All these writ petitions are decided by a common order. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petitions and quashed the acquisition proceedings. Hence, the State Government and V.L.B. Trust have come up in these writ appeals.2. In the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the following points arise for consideration:(i) Whether the time gap between the publication of the notification in the Official G...
A.N. ShamsuddIn Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR542(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. One A. Noor Mohammed of Nidur died on August 14, 1976. An estate duty account admitting a principal value of the estate of Rs. 12,21,992 was stated to have been filed on March 22, 1978, by A. N. Shamsuddin, son of the deceased (petitioner herein). A sum of Rs. 3,11,142.60 was provisionally assessed under section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act'), and a demand notice under section 73 of the Act thereof was stated to have been served on March 28, 1978, giving time for payment till April 27, 1978, for payment of the same. 2. There were fixed deposits in the names of minor son, A. K. Mohammed Johini, and mother guardian, Halima Bivi, and the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,76,804.82 in Indian Bank, Mayuram. Attachment notice under section 73(5) was stated to have been issued on July 13, 1978, to the Indian Bank, Mayuram, and the bank, in its letter dated July 13, 1978, was stated to have undertaken the responsibility by transferring the monthly interes...
Philip James Coates Vs. Agnes Fernandes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad1
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The husband is the petitioner in this case. He filed IDOP No. 248 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Coimbatore for dissolution of the marriage between himself and the respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that the marriage between the parties had taken place on 19-8-1987 according to Christian rites. The petitioner further states that the respondent had been illtreating the petitioner, since the date of the marriage and because of her hostile attitude the marriage has not been consummated. He also states that the respondent has told him that she married the petitioner only to satisfy her parents, who compelled her to marry the petitioner. The petitioner further states that she is working at Ramakrishna Hospital as a nurse and she is still continuing her adulterous life with her pre-marital partner and finally left the matrimonial house in February, 1988. It appears that there was a panchayat before the Parish Priest and before him, they ...
S. John Dhanadurai Vs. J. Marry Suganthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad81
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The husband is the petitioner. He filed I.D.O.P, No. 149 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Tirunelveli under Ss. 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act for a decree declaring the marriage between himself and the respondent as null and void.2. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the marriage between himself and the respondent took place on 5-6-1989 according to Christian rites. On the night of the marriage, they spent the first night at Spic Motel, a posh hotel at Tuticorin. The petitioner describes what happened subsequently in the petition. In substance, the petitioner states that though they lived for nine days together, there was no sexual intercourse and the marriage was not consummated. The petitioner specifically states that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the presentation of the petition on account of depressive psychosis. It is the case of the petitioner that when the respondent li...
Dr. V. Balasundaram Vs. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad201
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J. 1. Learned Government Pleader is present and be is directed to lake notice. Accordingly, we have heard him. 2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 23rd July, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 12798 and 12883 of 1993. The petitioner in Writ Petition 12833 of 1993 is the appellant in this writ appeal. 3. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for quashing the order bearing G.O.Ms. No. 366 dated 11th May, 1993, naming one of the Districts in the State as 'Villupuram Ramasamy Padayatchiar District'. Alternatively, it was also prated that the appellation 'Padayatchiar' to the name of Ramasamy be directed to be dropped as according to the petitioner, it is a caste appellation. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. During the course of the order, learned single Judge has also observed that the petitioners have looked at the whole issue with the jaundiced eye. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of th...
A. Edwardraj Alias A. Sellakatti Vs. C. Selvarani and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad82
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is an unfortunate case in which the learned District Judge has failed to take note of the correct position in law in matters of divorce. The petition is filed under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act by the husband. He has alleged that the first respondent, his wife, is living in adultery with the second respondent. Along with the petition he produced as many as 30 documents. The first respondent filed a counter-statement denying every one of the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. But, in the last paragraph, the firstrespondent stated that he had absolutely no objection for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce and prayed that orders may be passed accordingly. It is seen from the counter-statement that she is desirous to have a divorce as, according to her, the petitioner is treating her very cruelly and he is always suspecting her character and abusing her in the presence of others.2. The petitioner did not get into the witness...
Gopal Alias Arunthava Selvan Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Esplana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: 1994CriLJ853
Arunachalam, J.1. This appeal is directed, against the convictions and sentences imposed, on Gopal @ Arunthavaselvan, for murder/life imprisonment and theft/3 years R.I., in S.C. No. 7 of 1987 on the file of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. Though the second charge was framed under section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, conviction was recorded only under section 380 Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution case, that at or about 2 p.m. on 12-7-1986, in room No. 307 Bagiyam House Lodge, No. 11, Sunkurama Chetti Street, Madras-1, appellant caused the death of deceased Vizhaka Raja by squeezing his testicles and thereafter committed theft of his gold dollar chain worth about Rs. 8,000/-. Appellant, deceased and P.W. 4 Ravikandh, an Engineering student, are Sri Lankans, appellant and deceased were friends. P.W. 4 knew both of them. It is in evidence, that Vizhaka Raja was in the habit of periodically arriving into this Country, obviously with smuggled goods, to sell them away. Si...
Tmt. Thangalakshmi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas246(Mad); [1994]205ITR176(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. These two petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are filed to call for the records in C.C. Nos. 47 and 46 of 1986, respectively, on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, and to quash the same. 2. There were four accused before the trial court in both the above cases. The first accused is Messrs. Rasi Metals, and Alloys, a registered partnership firm. The third accused is the petitioner in these petitions and she is a partner of the first accused firm. The prosecutions were instituted against the firm, Messrs. Rasi Metals and Alloys, and partners by the Income-tax Officer, Circle I(1), Madurai, for alleged offences under sections 192, 193, 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in C.C. No. 46 of 1986 and under sections 193, 197, 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 276C, 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »