Chennai Court October 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.
Kannan Alias Krishna Rajan Vs. R.A. Varadarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3059
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petitions and the Judgment of the lower Courts, and the record in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Ramesh, Advocate for the respondent, and the petitioner not appearing in person or by Advocate the Court made the following order :- The revision petitioner is absent. Therefore, on hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the order is passed. 2. This revision is against the order of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.R.P. No. 17 of 1989 setting aside the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate of Tiruchengode in P.R. No. 13 of 1987 dated 16-11-1988. 3. The respondent herein is the complainant before the learned Magistrate alleging that the revision petitioner and others had committed the offences under Sections 148, 149, 427, 109, 114, 453, 448 and 398 of Indian Penal Code. He alleged that as owner of certain buildings he was occupying those ...
Shanmugham Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1588
Janarthanam, J. 1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 1 of 1896 on the file of Court of Session, The Nilgiris Division, Uthagamandalam. He was found guilty of an offence under Section 302, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 2. Brief facts are :- (a) The accused, being a barber by profession, is a resident of Jagathara village, situate within the limits of Aravankadu police station. P.Ws. 1 to 4, 7 and one Vasudevan (since deceased) are the residents of Karaikorai, situate adjacent to the village of the accused. They belonged to Paduga community. The accused, somehow or other, was stated to have developed illicit intimacy with P.W. 4. This became a talk of the village. Such illicit intimacy was also known to P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 and the deceased. It appears, the illicit connection between a Paduga community woman, like P.W. 4 and the accused, a barber, had been resented to...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gopal Plastic (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR136(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. There questions, viz., (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to initial depreciation under section 32(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77 as a small-scale industrial undertaking within the meaning of Explanation 3 to section 32(1)(vi) of the Act; (ii) whether it was disentitled to relief under section 80J although the old machinery was less than the prescribed percentage of 20 per cent. during the relevant year, but in excess of 20 per cent. in an earlier year; and (iii) whether borrowed capital could be taken as part of the capital base for the purpose of refund under section 80J in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 19A, fall for consideration in the instant case. 2. The above are questions modified in form by us, but in substance the same as referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax on the basis of an agreed statement of case, which is as follows : The assessee, Gopal Plastics Private Limited, is a company manuf...
Younus Sait Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR132(Mad)
Thanikkachalan, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 65,000 realised from the sale of trees. According to the assessee, the trees grew spontaneously. Therefore, the sale proceeds of these trees are not amenable to tax. However, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer took the view that even trees grown spontaneously or planted, since they are forming a 'thope', the sale proceeds of the trees would be amenable to tax. The addition made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was sustained by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. According to the assessee, if the sale proceeds come from the sale of the trees spontaneously grown, such sale proceeds are not taxable. Similarly, it was contended that if the trees are grown for the purpose of giving shade, then also the sale proceeds of these trees are not taxable. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of Kerala v. Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. : [1966]60ITR275(SC) ; United Nilgiri Tea Estates ...
Minor S. Satishchandran, Represented by His Next Friend and Guardian S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ29
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition, which is very widely couched, runs as follows:To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records that culminated in the selection of students for Free Seats in First Year B.E. course under Sports Category for 1993-94 and quash the same and direct the respondents to select the petitioner for First Year B.E. course either in P.S.G. College of Technology or R.E. College Trichy, where there is much scope for continuing his career in Basket Ball or in any other Government College under the category of Free Seats under Sports Category for the year 1993-94.2. The facts in brief are as follows:According in several sports events including those of All India and State Level Tournaments for which participation certificates were not issued. The petitioner represented his school Basket Ball Team and played in the All India Gerhard Fisher Open Basket Ball Tournaments conducted by the I.I...
S. Raman Vs. Nithyakalyani Flush Doors Company Private Limited by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ575
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 105 of 1993 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenkasi, is the revision petitioner in both these revisions. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was one for specific performance of an agreement for lease dated 14.9.1991. After the suit was filed, the petitioner filed I.A. 633 of 1993 that the suit document, i.e., agreement for lease must be impounded, since it is not properly stamped and registered. He wanted the said petition to be decided preliminarily. According to the petitioner the agreement for lease is stamped only at Rs. 5. Since, it is not properly stamped it is not admissible in evidence for two reasons, i.e., it ought to have been registered and that too after impounding. According to him, the agreement for lease creates a present right in favour of the lessee. The nomenclature of the document is not conclusive.3. For the said petition, the respondent/ plaintiff contended that the document is only an agreement and there is...
Pappammal Vs. G.R. Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ359
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The suit filed by the plaintiff was to recover the plaint property on the basis of possessory title.3. According to the appellant, she occupied one cent of 'natham' poramboke in S.F. No. 149 A/1 in Veerapandi Village 15 years ago and constructed a building at a cost of Rs. 500. Under Act 3 of 1905, her occupation was brought under B. Memo by the Revenue Authorities. She was served with Section 5 Notice, and she paid prohibitory assessment for the suit property.4. According to the appellant, the defendant (respondent) were occupying a building belonging to one Ponniah and A.D.S. Mani. They filed a suit O.S. No. 305 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Gobichettipalayam, for eviction of the defendants. The suit was decreed, and the defendants were directed to be evicted. It was at that time, the defendants pleaded before the plaintiff that they may be permitted to occupy the scheduled building as a temporary accommodation...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalai Selvi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas565(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The appellant is the insurance company. The only question raised by the appellant refers to the limit of the liability of the insurance company. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs. 1,85,000. According to the insurance company, the liability of the companies restricted to Rs. 1,50,000. It produced the certificate of insurance (exhibit B-4) for the vehicle in question for the relevant period. The Tribunal on a construction of the clause in exhibit B-4 rejected the contention of the appellant and passed an award against the appellant and that owner of the vehicle for the entire amount jointly and severally. 2. The relevant provision in exhibit B-4 reads thus : 'I/we hereby certify that the policy to which this certificate relates as well as this certificate of insurance are issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII-A and VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.' 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, when the insurance is effected in ac...
Subbiramani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Velur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3382
1. The appellant was accused in S. C. No. 191 of 1986 on the file Court of Session, Salem. 2. He was found guilty for offences under Sections 302, 316, 201 and 404, IPC., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 316, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 404, I.P.C., with a direction that all the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts are :- (a) The accused is a resident of Kuchipalayam, situate within the limits of Paramathi Velur Police, Station. His wife was one Lakshmi (since deceased). The spouses were blessed with a female child, by name Vaidhegi. At or about the time of occurrence, which event happened on 1st June, 1985, his wife the deceased was in advanced stage of pregnancy. The accused suspected the fidelity of his wife. Consequently, there was want of cordial atmosphere prevailing...
Hariharaputhra Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR111(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner. The first point in this revision relates to claim for deduction of the amount paid towards professional tax. The assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 125 towards professional tax and claimed deduction under the agricultural income-tax assessment proceedings. The authorities below held that there is no nexus between the payment of agricultural tax and the agricultural activities. Therefore, they disallowed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is in revision before this court. 2. When a similar issue came up before this court for consideration in Kanthimathy Plantations P. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1993] 4 MTCR 409, it was clearly held by this court that the professional tax cannot be allowed as a deduction under the agricultural income-tax assessment pro-ceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal on this point is in order. 3. The next ground in this revision relates to the expenditure claimed for vehicle maintenance. The assesse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »