Chennai Court January 1994 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.
Balu Sendappriyar and Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Pattuko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ155
1. The six accused who have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court have filed this Criminal Appeal. All the accused I to 6 have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonemt for one year, first accused has been convicted under section 304 part II and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and third accused has been convicted under section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case against the accused is that PW 1 Karunanidhi, PW 3 Sivamani and PW 4 Natarajan are brothers. PW 1 was the eldest of them. PW 2 Ramachandran and Govindarajan deceased in the case were brother-in-law of them. They all belong to Aavikkottai village. PW 1 Karunanidhi had obtained a power of attorney on 5-8-1985 from one Deivanai for cultivating 11 1/2 Maa of land for Rs. 5,000/- in Oolayakunnam village. In that land there is a well, a pumpshed and a pumpset.3. As ...
Madras Citizens Progressive Council Vs. Honourable President of India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad16
ORDER1. The above writ petition has been filed by an Organization called The Madias Citizens Progressive Council, represented by its Chair Person one Kasturi Radhakrishnan, for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Hon'ble the President of India, New Delhi, to forward the representations of the petitioner, dated 26-9-1993, 30-9-1993, 3-10-1993 and 9-10-1993, and obtain the opinion of the Election Commission in accordance with Art. 103(2) of the Constitution oflndia pertaining tc the alleged disqualification against the fourth respondent, Dr. Manmohan Singh, a Member of the Parliament and the Minister for Finance, Government of India.2. The move of the petitioner appears to have been on an inspiration drawn from a publication of a news item in the Indian Express, English Daily, dated 26-9-1993, under a caption 'Domicile Dilemma'. Shorn of all unrecessary details and embellishments made in the affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner Institution attempts to activate the...
T.T. Meenakshi Achi and Others Vs. the District Registrar, Coimbatore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Mad317
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. When the writ appeal 1355 of 1993 came up for orders,we directed the Writ Petition 10903 of 1993 be also posted along with it for hearing.Accordingly,the writ appeal and writ petition are posted for hearing.We have heard both sides.2. The writ appeal is preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition, therefore the result of it would depend upon the decision in the writ petition.Accordingly,we first take up the writ petition for consideration.3. The petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 30-5-1990 and 3-5-1991,passed in 1. No.1/A1/90 and Ra.Mu.57774/E3/9 by the 1st and 2nd respondent respectively.4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the document dated 12-3-1990 produced at page 1 of the typed set of records does not warrant payment of stamp duty as demanded by 2nd respondent,in as much as the said document cannot at all be considered to be a document of conve...
Manivannan Vs. Ever King Garments
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas473(Mad)
Pratap Singh J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 6 of 1993 on the file of the Juridical Magistrate, No. II, Tiruppur, under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has filed this petition, praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The short facts are : The respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations in it are briefly as follows : The complainant is doing hosiery business under the name and style of 'Ever King Garments'. He is one of the partners of the firm. The accused had been doing business with the complainant by way of purchasing hosiery goods. For the goods supplied to the accused, the accused had issued a cheque on August 5, 1992, for Rs. 6,420 in favour of the complainant. On August 20, 1992, the accused had issued another cheque in favour of this complainant. On August 25, 1992, and Septem...
Sethuraman Thiagarajan Engineers P. Ltd. and Others Vs. Cholamandalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas484(Mad)
Pratap Singh, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 5427 of 1991 on the file of the VII the Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, have 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 short facts are : The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The complainant carries on business in hire purchase, financing and leasing. In the course of the complainant's business, the first accused entered into an agreement of bills discounting for supply of emergency switchboards and outgoing feeders with the complainant-company. Pursuant to the agreement entered into between the complainant and the first accused, of which the second and the third accused are directors, the first accused company handed over two cheques for Rs. 6,37,000 and Rs. 13,77,000 draw...
Govindan Alias Sadayan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ1904
Arunachalam, J.1. Both these habeas corpus petitions are disposed of together by a common order, since detenu concerned in each one of these petitions are stated to be involved in the same ground crime and the argument advanced is identical. 2. Govindan alias Sadayan petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1315 of 1993 is the further of detenu Dhanapal alias Chinnavan, who has been detained as 'goonda' under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuance of an order of detention dt. 3-6-1993 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate and Collector, Salem, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. Palanisamy, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1329 of 1993 is the brother of detenu Veerasamy, who has been similarly detained by the second respondent as a 'goonda' by his order dt. 3-6-1993. 4. Since these habeas corpus petition can be decided without going into the facts in detail, which led to the passing of the impugned orders, we refrain...
Chakiat Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR383(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. All these writ petitions are directed against the order of the appropriate authority dated February 13, 1991 passed under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax, Act, 1961, in respect of the property bearing No. 40, Rajaji Salai, First Line Beach, Madras-600 001 (hereinafter called 'the property'). 2. The brief facts are the following : The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16812 of 1991 is the owner of the property. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 16812 of 1991 (with which we are not immediately concerned), the petitioner decided to sell the property, and, for that purpose, the petitioner approached this court in C. S. No. 542 of 1990. P. K. Sethuraman J., by order dated July 3, 1990, directed the petitioner to advertise in the issues of The Hindu or Indian Express and also in the issues of either Dhina Thanthi or Dhina Malar, about the sale of the property, and, accordingly, the petitioner advertised in the issue of Indian E...
Shyam Investments and anr. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Mad)92
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The agreement holder for the purchase of the property in question, aggrieved by the order of the Appropriate Authority, dt. 9th Dec., 1986, passed under s. 269UD of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has filed this writ petition challenging that order. 2. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, owners of the property in question, by approaching this Court, have obtained an order, making the Department pay a sum of Rs. 16,00,000 to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Mount Road, Madras, towards mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the property in question, vide judgment in W.A. No. 1637 of 1987, dt. 15th Oct., 1987 [Tirath Kaur vs. Shyam Investments]. Possession of the property was also taken by the Department on 1st Feb., 1988. 3. In the decision reported in C.B. Gautam vs . Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while upholding the validity of Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, inter alia, have observed as follows : 'We ma...
Nellai Maavatta Oppandha Beedi Thayariparigal Sangam Vs. Collr. of C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT192(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the rights of the members of the petitioner's association in adopting a procedure for the supply of raw materials and collection of beedies from the concerned home workers. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner-association consists of the contractors who supply the raw materials to the home workers for getting the beedies rolled. Since most of the workers are women folk the contractors have devised a method by which the contractors themselves directly or through their men supply the beedies to the independent workers and collect the finished goods. The respondents were not agreeable to this method of supply of raw materials since the quantity of beedies manufactured could not be properly assessed. After service of notice in the writ petition, the Collector of Central Excis...
N.V. Jagannathan Vs. Mrs. Amrut Gowri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: (1994)1MLJ559
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(3)(i) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act, 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord, he purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 24.6.1983. The petition premises was let out for the purpose of residence to the tenant. Thereafter, the tenant without consent of the landlord utilised the petition premises for non-residential purpose. The landlord by a letter dated 27.6.1983 intimated the tenant that he purchased the petition premises. The tenant accepted the tenancy and paid the rent to the subsequent purchaser, who is the petitioner in the eviction petition. On 2.6.1977 the landlord sent a notice to the tenant stating that the tenant without the consent of the landlord is using the premises for conducting a school under the name and style of 'Kalaimagal English Sch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »